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 Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ especially in the nature of Certiorari to quash the notifications under Section 4 dated 16.12.1988 (Annexure P-3), under Section 6 dated 13.12.1989 (Annexure P-4) and Award No.3 dated 28.03.1990 (Annexure P-5) passed under the Land Acquisition Act, by virtue of which the land of the petitioner has been acquired, being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, irregular and against the fundamental rights of the petitioner.
And Further issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner during the pendency of the present writ petition.
AND/OR Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.”
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 16.12.1988 and Notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 13.12.1989 for the public purpose, namely, for the development and utilization of land for residential/commercial area in Sector 23, Sonepat. It is further submitted that the award in the present case was passed on 28.03.1990 and the possession was taken vide rapat roznamcha No.510 dated 28.03.1990 since then land is vested with the State Government. It is stated that the entire amount of compensation i.e. Rs.5,60,60,491/- had been tendered and out of the said amount, Rs.4,48,48,392/-, which comes to approximately 80% of the total amount of award, had been disbursed to various land owners and the balance amount of the award is lying deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector and is ready for disbursal to the landowners.
Learned State counsel has submitted that an earlier writ petition i.e. CWP-4636-2001 titled as “Murti Devi and others Vs. State of Haryana and others”, was dismissed on 24.10.2002 by a Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed a writ petition, which was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 12.04.2016, with liberty to file a fresh petition and accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed. It is further submitted that the possession of the land in question has already been taken vide rapat roznamcha No.510 dated 21.04.1990 and the land of the petitioner is affecting the planning of the service road green-belt, site of dispensary and a plot measuring 1 kanal, as per the approved layout plan. It is further submitted that the challenge to the acquisition deserves to be dismissed in view of the 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.
None had appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 20.03.2026 as well as on 10.08.2026. On 10.08.2026 notice was issued to the petitioner. In spite of the same, today again no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner to inform the Court as to whether the petitioner wishes to pursue the present writ petition or not.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to revive the same in case she wants to pursue the present writ petition or in case any cause survives.