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:
“CIVIL WRIT PETITION under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.01.2015 (Annexure P-8) and notification dated 23.02.1989 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Annexure P-1) and the notification dated 22.02.1990 issued under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Annexure P-2), vide which the land of the petitioner has been acquired, and further, writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the land belongs the petitioner, whereas the discriminatory manner as of malpractice adopted with regard to acquisition and release of similarly situated land under Acquisition and further, directing the respondents to consider the case and to release the land as per Section 24 (2) of the Act i.e. the Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 as the petitioner is still in physical possession of the land in question, and payment of compensation has not been paid; AND For the issuance of any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that in the present case, the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 23.02.1989 for the public purpose namely for development and utilization of land for residential and commercial area for Sector 17, Panipat and the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 22.02.1990. It is submitted that the award in the present case was passed on 21.02.1992 and the possession of the land was taken at the time of the announcement of the award vide Rapat Roznamcha No.277 dated 21.02.1992. It is submitted that the entire amount of compensation of ₹16,52,32,478/- had been tendered at the time of announcement of the award and out of the said amount, an amount of ₹13,44,57,860/- has already been disbursed among the landowners and rest of the amount of compensation of ₹3,07,74,618/- is lying deposited in the LAC account and is available for disbursement. It is submitted that the first petition was filed in the year 2014, which was after a delay of 22 years from the date of the passing of the award and thus, as far as the challenge to the acquisition is concerned, the same 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 petitioners has submitted that in view of the same, the petitioners seek 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 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 his 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 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 an 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.