AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
In the headnote of the petition, following prayers have been made:
“Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writs in the nature of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition etc. for quashing the impugned Notifications dated 20.8.2007 (Annexure P-3) and 24.12.2007 (Annexure P-4) issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 respectively and the Award dated 20.1.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed and all subsequent proceedings taken in pursuance thereof to release the land in question of the petitioner in view of the reduction of green belt from 100 meters to 30 meters along the main road dividing the sectors and further praying that the dispossession of the petitioner from the land in question may kindly be stayed during the pendency of the present civil writ petition before this Hon'ble Court.”
Learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that in the present case, the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1894 Act’) was issued on 20.08.2007 for acquiring 222.55 acres of land for the public purpose namely for Sector 27-A and 27-B (Part), Rohtak, and the petitioner was the owner of 69 kanal and 17 marla of land and filed objections under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act and his land measuring 34 kanal 18 marla was released and rest of the land, since it was lying vacant, was acquired. It is further submitted that the declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued on 24.12.2007 and the possession of the land in question was taken vide Rapat No.222 dated 20.01.2009 and the total amount of compensation of ₹14,63,94,660/-was duly tendered, out of which ₹14,27,16,092/- has also been disbursed among the landowners and rest of the compensation has also been deposited and it is open for the landowners to receive the same. It is further submitted that the petitioner had taken the compensation on 25.02.2009 and had even filed reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act vide LAC No.982 of 2010, whereby the amount of compensation was enhanced to ₹60,65,446/-. It is submitted that the present writ petition has been filed after a period of 12 years from the date, the award was passed and has thus, submitted that the challenge to the acquisition deserves to be dismissed in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others reported as (2020) 8 SCC 129 as well as by this Court in CWP-13333-2016 titled as Gopal Singh Rathi and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 23.07.2026.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the same, the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to move a 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’) within a period of one month from today. It is submitted that the said aspect would still be open, even in case the petitioner gives 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 petitioner, in accordance with law in a time bound manner.
Learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that in case the petitioner is giving up challenge to the notifications and the award and in case he files 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 petitioner, 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 petitioner and the respondents-State, while permitting the petitioner to withdraw the present writ petition as far as the challenge to the notifications and the award is concerned, the petitioner is 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 an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, 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.