AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
Present order would dispose of above-said two writ petitions i.e. CWP-30603-2026 titled as 'Vivek Aggarwal and others Vs. State of Haryana and others', and CWP-30623-2026 titled as 'Hari Parkash Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and others', as common questions of law and facts arise.
With the consent of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents-State, CWP-30603-2026 is taken up as the lead case. In the said writ petition, the following prayers have been made in the headnote: -
“Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ in the Nature of Mandamus of Direction to the respondents to release the petitioner's land/structures situated in Kasba Karnal, Tehsil and District Karnal from acquisition under Section 101-A of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as land has become unviable and non-essential for the public purpose for which it was acquired, along with all consequential reliefs and on the ground of parity, because respondents have released land from the same khasra numbers and adjacent to this land in view of the High Court order dated 11.03.2014 passed in CWP No.5211 of 2014 (Annexure P-7) and in view of the High Court order dated 09.07.2014 passed in CWP No.12944 of 2014 (Annexure P-8)
AND
Further Direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to release the petitioner's land on the ground of parity also, as the respondents have released the land of other land owners in the same vicinity in view of the policy dated 26.10.2007 (Annexure P- 11) and 24.01.2011 (Annexure P-12) and in view of the policy dated 14.09.2018 (Annexure P-13) and 21.07.2022 (Annexure P- 14) and order dated 22.07.2022 (Annexure P-15) or any other policy of the Govt. of Haryana vide which state of Haryana has decided to release the acquired land/houses/shops of the land owners, which cannot be utilized by the respondents in any manner And
For issuance of any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.”
Learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that in the present cases, the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1894”) was issued on 11.07.2006 and Notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 16.07.2007 and the award was passed on 20.07.2009. It is further submitted that the present writ petitions have been filed after a delay of 17 years from the date of the award and the possession of the land had been taken by the respondents and even the entire compensation amount had been deposited. It is further submitted that 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 the petitioners would give up their challenge to the acquisition but have submitted that since it is the case of the petitioners that it is neither viable nor essential for the land to be acquired, thus, in both the cases, the petitioners have given separate representations i.e., dated 01.07.2026 (Annexure P-21 in CWP-30603-2026) and dated 01.07.2026 (Annexure P-15 in CWP-30623-2026) and would be satisfied, at this stage, in case respondent No.1 considers the said representations under 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”) in a time bound manner after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, in accordance with law and if after considering the same, in case, the pleas raised by the petitioners are found to be meritorious, then, appropriate relief be granted to the petitioners.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State has submitted that respondent No.1 would consider the said representations by invoking the power under Section 101-A of the 2013 Act and decide the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the present writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to cosider and decide both the above-said representations 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 certified copy of the present order and in case, after considering the same, the pleas of the petitioners are found to be meritorious, then, the appropriate relief be granted to the petitioners.
It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of the cases and respondent No.1 would consider and decide the matters independently, in accordance with law.