AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
This is a Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus quashing the notification dated 30.10.1992 (Annexure P-4) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as “1894 Act”), notification dated 28.10.1993 (Annexure P-5) issued under Section 6 of the 1894 Act, and award dated 26.10.1995 and all the consequential proceedings.
Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in the present case, notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act was issued on 30.10.1992 and notification under Section 6 of 1894 Act was issued on 28.10.1993 for the public purpose namely for the development and utilization of land for setting up of Mini Urban Estate at Narnaul, District Mahendergarh. It is submitted that the petitioners have not filed any objections under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act and the possession of the acquired land was taken vide rapat roznamcha no.57 dated 26.10.1995 and has been handed over to the Estate Officer, HSVP, on the same day. It is further submitted that the award was announced on 26.10.1995 and the total compensation, which was awarded, was Rs.4,15,33,982.15/- and out of which an amount of Rs.3,61,00,543.71/- has already been released to the landowners / interested persons and that the remaining amount of compensation has also been tendered and is readily available for disbursement. It is submitted that the petitioners along with other persons after 7 years had filed CWP-5304-2002 titled as “Champu Lal & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.” for quashing of the notifications in question, however, the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.04.2002 (Annexure R-1) did not quash the notifications and only observed that in case the petitioners are entitled to the compensation, the same shall be released to them within a period of two months. It is submitted that review petition filed against the said judgment was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.08.2002 and thus, the proceedings had concluded.
It is further submitted that, thereafter, the petitioners filed the present petition after coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred to as “2013 Act”) and raised their claims on the basis of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act which was allowed by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.12.2017. It is further submitted that the said judgment of the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court has been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29.02.2024 and the relevant portion of which has been highlighted, is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“4.Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondents at length and carefully perusing the material placed on record, it appears that the High Court had declared the acquisition proceedings in question as lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. However, it is not disputed by the learned counsels for the parties that in view of the later decision in the case of “Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal And Ors. Etc.” reported in (2020) 8 SCC (129), the matter is required to be remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration.
5.In view of the above, the impugned Judgment passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in the light of the Judgment in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra).
6.It is clarified that all contentions are kept open to be raised by both the parties as may be legally permissible.
7.The appeal stands allowed in above terms.”
It is submitted that in the said circumstances, the case of the petitioners is squarely covered against them 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 the law laid down by this Court in the case of Gopal Singh Rathi and others vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP-13333-2016 decided on 23.07.2026. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the land in question was vacant at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a perusal of the order dated 11.12.2017 passed in CWP-23019-2017 filed by the petitioners would show that the respondents did not dispute the fact that the petitioners were owners of 4 biswas i.e., 600 square yards of the land and have raised ‘A’ class construction prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act and the State had stated that the 600 square yards of plot would be released by the State by giving it a proper shape. The paragraph in the order dated 11.12.2017, which has been highlighted on behalf of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that neither compensation for the acquired land has been paid to the petitioners nor possession thereof has been taken from them. It was submitted that petitioners had purchased 4 biswas i.e. 600 square yards of land, on which they had raised 'A' class construction, prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. The petitioners are still in physical possession of the land in question.
Learned counsel for the State did not dispute the fact that the petitioners are the owners of 4 biswas i.e. 600 square yards of land and had raised 'A' class construction prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. Compensation for the acquired land has not been received by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that 600 square yards of plot will be released by the State by giving it a proper shape, as presently the plot owned by the petitioners is not in proper shape and it is affecting proper planning in the area. While saving the constructed portion of the main building, the area will be demarcated. However, in that process, if some part of the boundary wall is to be demolished, the petitioners should consent for that.”
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners, in the said circumstances, has submitted that at least the right of the petitioners to seek invocation of the provision of Section 101-A of 2013 Act would still subsist and has further submitted that for the said purpose, the petitioners would submit a representation within a period of one month from today and has prayed that respondent no.1 be directed to consider the same on merits and pass a speaking order in a time bound manner.
Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the order dated 11.12. 2017, which has been relied upon by the petitioners, has been set aside subsequently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that in case the challenge to the notifications is given up by the petitioners, then, the respondent no.1 would consider the representation given by the petitioners on the aspect of Section 101-A of 2013 Act.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has fairly submitted that the said consideration with respect to Section 101- A of 2013 Act be done in case the petitioners give in writing that they would not challenge the notifications.
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances and the fair stand taken by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following observations / directions:-
It would be open to the petitioners to give a representation to respondent no.1 for invoking the provisions of Section 101-A of the 2013 Act within a period of one month from today. In the said representation, it would be necessary for the petitioners to state that they have given up the challenge to the notifications.
ii) In case the said representation with the abovesaid averments is filed within the aforesaid period, then, respondent no.1 is directed to consider the same and pass a speaking order on the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the representation.