AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
In the present writ petition, the following prayers have been made in the headnote: -
“Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the constitution of india for issuance of an appropriate writ for declaration that the process of the land in question sought to be acquired vide Notification No.LAC(P)-NTLA-93/1188 dated 02.03.1993 [Annexure p-3], Notification No.LAC(P)-NTLA/94/803 dated 01.03.1994 [Annexure p-6] and Award No.7 dated 28.02.1996 for the year 1995-1996 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates, Haryana, Panchkula [Annexure P-9] stands lapsed and furthermore for issuance of any other appropriate writ, order or directions which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the 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 02.03.1993 and Notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 01.03.1994. It is further submitted that the award had been passed on 28.02.1996 and the possession of the property in question was taken vide rapat No.338 dated 28.02.1996. It is stated that the compensation had also been tendered and was deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector and the present writ petition has been filed in the year 2015 after a period of more than 19 years of the passing of the award. 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. State of Haryana and others”, passed in CWP-13333-2016, decided on 23.07.2026.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the same, the petitioners seek to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to move 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”). 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.