AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIKAS BAHL, J (ORAL)
This is a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to exempt the land comprising in Rect./Mustil No.60, Killa No.16, 17, 18, 24/2, total 20 Kanals 6 Marlas situated in Village Pada, District Rohtak which was acquired by the Notification dated 04.01.2002 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Notification dated 31.12.2002 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which has lapsed in view of the 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 Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1894”) was issued on 04.01.2002 and was only for the purpose of development and utilization of land as residential, transport and communication. It is submitted that Notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 31.12.2002 and the award was passed on 29.12.2004 and the petitioners had filed the first writ petition after delay of 12 years in the year 2016. It is submitted that in the present writ petition, rapat roznamcha No.444 was issued on 29.12.2004 and the entire compensation was tendered and 71% of the compensation has been distributed also and even the rest of the compensation is lying with the Land Acquisition Collector and the same can be taken by the land owners. 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. S tate of Haryana and others”, passed in CWP-13333-2016, decided on 23.07.2026. It is submitted that in view of the same, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have their house on the land in question in the present case and has further submitted that it is both unviable and non-essential for the respondents to acquire the said land. It is submitted that in the said circumstances, even in case the petitioners do not challenge acquisition, they would have a right to seek the invocation of Section 101-A of the 2013 Act and thus, submitted that the petitioners be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to move representation to the respondent No.1-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.