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 Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance writ, order or direction for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the notifications dated 23.08.2007 (Annexure P-5) and 21.08.2007 (Annexure P-10) issued u/s 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894 along-with the award dated 19.08.2010 (Annexure P- 11) and all consequential proceedings qua khasra no. 20/2 considering the fact that the land is surrounded by the released land on three sides and cannot be utilized for any public purpose, in the interest of justice.
AND/OR
To issue writ, order or direction in the nature Mandamus directing the respondents to release the land falling in khasra no. 20/2 from the acquisition proceedings, acquired vide the notifications dated 23.08.2007 (Annexure P-5) and 21.08.2007 (Annexure P-10) issued u/s 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894, followed by the award dated 19.08.2010 (Annexure P- 11) considering the fact that there was Class 'A' construction existed prior to the issuance of notification u/s 4 of the 1894 Act on khasra no. 19/2 and 20/2, in the interest of justice.
AND/OR
To stay any coercive steps against the petitioners and in the alternative directing the respondents to maintain status quo qua khasra no. 20/2.
AND/OR
Further issue writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, in the interest of justice.”
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 23.08.2007 and Notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 21.08.2008 and the award had been passed on 19.08.2010 and even the possession of the land in question was taken by virtue of rapat roznamcha. It is further submitted that the petitioners had filed the present writ petition after a delay of 15 years from the date of the award and 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.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that even in case the petitioners give up their challenge to the acquisition, still they have right to file a representation requesting the respondent-authorities to invoke 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”) as it is the case of the petitioners that it is not viable for the respondent-authorities to acquire the present land. 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 three 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 three 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.