AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
In the head note of the petition, following prayers have been made:-
“Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notification No.LAC(F)-82/NTLA/3410 dated 6.5.1982 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act and also declaration/notification No.LAC(F)-85/NTLA/1299 dated 2.5.1985 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 6 and the award No.5 dated 1.5.1987 (Annexure P-3) under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (since repealed) qua the land of the petitioners co-owned to the extent of their shares in land measuring 7K-10M situated in Khewat No.310//303 Khatoni No.348 and Killa No.41//16 (6-19), 25(0-11) and in land measuring 3K-4M situated in Khewat No.519//510 Khatoni No.571 and Killa No.41//17(3-4) situated in Village Sultanpur, Tehsil and District Sonepat as per jamabandi for the year 2014-2015;AND For issuance of any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case restraining the respondents from taking physical possession of the land involved in the present writ petition.”
Learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that in the present case, Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1894”) was issued on 06.05.1982 and Notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 02.05.1985 for the public purpose namely for the development of Sector 29, District Sonepat and the award had been passed on 01.05.1987. It is further submitted that the petitioners did not file any objections under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 and the possession of the land in question was taken vide rapat roznamcha No.453 dated 01.05.1987 and an amount of entire compensation of Rs.34,91,466/- was tendered by the Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak at the time of announcement of the award and if the landowner has not accepted the amount, it is open to the landowner to take the said amount. It is submitted that the present case is squarely covered against the petitioners by virtue of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others reported as (2020) 8 SCC 129.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, in view of the abovesaid facts and circumstances and on telephonic instructions received from the petitioners, has submitted that the abovesaid facts would not take away the right of the petitioners to request the respondents to invoke their power under Section 101-A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred as “the 2013 Act”) and thus, the petitioners seek to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to move a representation to the respondent authorities by invoking the provisions of Section 101-A of the 2013 Act. It is submitted that the said aspect would still be open, even in case the petitioners give up their challenge to the Notifications and the award. It is further submitted that the respondent-authorities be directed to consider and decide the said representation after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, in accordance with law in a time bound manner.
Learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that in case the petitioners are giving up their challenge to the notifications and the award and in case they file a representation requesting the respondent-authorities to invoke the power under Section 101-A of the 2013 Act, then, the said representation would be considered and decided after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within a period of four months from the date of submission of the said representation.
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances and the fair stand taken on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents-State, while permitting the petitioners to withdraw the present writ petition as far as challenge to the notifications and the award is concerned, the petitioners are permitted to file a representation requesting the respondent-authorities to invoke the power under Section 101-A of the 2013 Act within a period of one month from today and in case any such representation is filed, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the said representation.
It is made clear that the said representation would only be filed on the aspect of Section 101-A of the 2013 Act and this Court has not opined on the merits of the same and the same would be considered independently in accordance with law.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE (DIVYA SHARMA)
JUDGE 26.08.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No