IN T 221-I Estate Offi others Joginder M CORAM: Present: NIDHI GU RA-RS-74 review of t disposed of :- RA-RS-74-C-2015 in RSA-2795-2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR RA-RS-74-C-201 in RSA-2795-200 Date of decision : e Officer, Haryana Urban Developm Versus der Mohan …..Ap AM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr. Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta, for the review applicant-respon I GUPTA J. (Oral) 74-C-2015 Prayer in the present applicatio w of the order dated 06.9.2012, vide sed of by predecessor Bench of this Co “The suit filed by mandatory injunction appellants to deliver fre plot of 500 square yard dated 18.3.1992, circ 92/2082, was decreed 20.9.2007. The appeal p appellants was dismisse Judge, Kaithal, on 26.3.2 defendants-appellants h this regular second appe 009 1 UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH 2015 2009 ision :-12.03.2026 elopment Authority Kaithal and …..Appellants Applicant-Respondent NIDHI GUPTA iratta, Advocate respondent. lication (RA-RS-74-C-2015) is for vide which the main appeal was this Court, which reads as follows d by the plaintiff-respondent for ion directing the defendants r free hold residential developed yards, pursuant to their policy circulated vide memo No.2- reed by the trial court on eal preferred by the defendants- issed by the Additional District 6.3.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the ts have come up before me in appeal. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.03.13 19.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document learned cou review of t issued to th was decide situated had applicant/re by the Hon Appeal No Developme as follows : RA-RS-74-C-2015 in RSA-2795-2009 At the very outs appellants-defendants h delivered by the Division No.2096 of 2011, ti Development Authority others, decided on 25.4 principles of law and plots under oustees quot appeal may be disposed Accordingly the disposed of in terms o Division Bench of this 2011, decided on 25.4.20 Thereafter, the present review ed counsel for the review applicant/r w of the said order inter alia on the d to the review applicants prior to deci decided in limini; and also on the g d had been allotted plots. After hearing learned co cant/respondent, it is pointed out that th e Hon’ble Supreme Court vide orde l No.7707 of 2025 titled as Estate pment Authority and others vs. Nirm llows :- “xxx xxx xxx (ix) This litigation is in this country. If land purpose law permits instrumentality of Go accordance with the 009 2 outset, learned counsel for the ts has referred to the judgment ision Bench of this Court in LPA , titled as Haryana Urban ority & others vs. Sandeep and 25.4.2012, laying down detailed nd guidelines for allotment of quota and prayed that the instant sed of in the same terms. the instant appeal stands s of the order passed by the this Court in LPA No.2096 of .4.2012.” review application was filed by licant/respondent/plaintiff seeking n the ground that notice was not o decide the second appeal, which the ground that others similarly d counsel for the review that the oustee issue stands settled e order dated 14.7.2025 in Civil state Officer, Haryana Urban Nirmala Devi, wherein it is held n is an eye opener for all States land is required for any public its the Government or any Government to acquire in the provisions of the Land VIJAY ASIJA 2026.03.13 19.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document review appl of Hon’ble March 12, 2 Vijay Asija Whether spe Whether Rep RA-RS-74-C-2015 in RSA-2795-2009 Acquisition Act or any the purpose of acquisiti for any public purpose taken away is entitled to in accordance with the s only in the rarest of Government may consid rehabilitation of the d above paying them comp At times the State Go appease its subjects floa ultimately land up unnecessarily give rise t classic example is the o like to convey is that it cases over and above money, rehabilitation o must. Any beneficial Government should be g considerations of fairne landowners. xxx xxx xxx” In view of the above said undi w application stands disposed of in term n’ble Supreme Court. Pending application(s), if any, sh , 2026 Asija speaking/reasoned Yes / No er Reportable Yes / No 009 3 any other State Act enacted for uisition. When land is acquired pose the person whose land is ed to appropriate compensation the settled principles of law. It is t of the rare case that the onsider floating any scheme for e displaced persons over and compensation in terms of money. Government with a view to float unnecessary schemes and p in difficulties. It would rise to number of litigations. The he one at hand. What we would at it is not necessary that in all ove compensation in terms of n of the property owners is a cial measures taken by the be guided only by humanitarian airness and equity towards the d undisputed position, the present in terms of the aforesaid judgment any, shall stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.03.13 19.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document