AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
CM-13863-2026
Present application has been filed under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC for restoration of the writ petition.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The order dated 06.07.2026 is recalled and the main petition is restored to its original number.
CWP-17560-2016
In the head note of the petition, following prayers have been made:-
“Civil Writ Petition Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the Notification dated 5.3.90 i.e. Annexure P/4, Notification dated 28.2.91 i.e. Annexure P/5, Award dated 22.2.93 i.e. Annexure P/6 and all other subsequent proceedings taken thereunder be deemed to have been lapsed in terms of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013”
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 05.03.1990 and was duly published and Notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 28.02.1991, which was also duly published, for public purpose, namely, development and utilization of land for commercial, professional, institutional and green belt area adjoining Sector 19-20, Kaithal. It is further submitted that the petitioners had not filed any objections under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 and the award in the present case was passed on 22.02.1993 and the possession of the property had been taken vide rapat roznamcha vakayati No.238 dated 22.02.1993 and that out of the total compensation of Rs.57,26,182/-, an amount of Rs.24,42,214/-has already been disbursed to the landowners and the remaining is also tendered and is available for the landowners to receive the same. It is further submitted that the petitioners are the subsequent purchasers as they had purchased the property measuring 13 marlas vide sale deed dated 06.11.1990, which is after the Notification under Section 4 which was issued on 05.03.1990 and it is thus submitted that the petitioners have no right to challenge the acquisition. It is stated that the petitioners had earlier filed a petition bearing CWP-21265 of 2008 which was dismissed on 16.12.2009 and even an SLP against the said writ petition was dismissed on 08.07.2010 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after noticing the fact that the petitioners are the subsequent purchasers. 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 as well as by this Court in case titled as “Gopal Singh Rathi and others Vs. State of Haryana and others”, passed in CWP-13333-2016, decided on 23.07.2026 and
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the same, the petitioners seek to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to move representation to the respondents-State by invoking the provisions of 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”). 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 competent authority of respondent no.1 be directed to consider and decide the said representation after affording 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 State to invoke the power under Section 101-A of the 2013 Act, then, the said representation would be considered and decided after affording 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 the challenge to the notifications and the award is concerned, the petitioners are permitted to file a representation requesting the State Government 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 competent authority of respondent no.1 is directed to consider and decide the same after affording 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.