CWP-26035-2016 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (207) CWP-26035-2016 Date of Decision: - 27.08.2026 Ms/ Uttam Fabricaters ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DIVYA SHARMA Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus seeking direction to release the land of the petitioner under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 2. 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 08.05.1995 and Notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 06.05.1996 for the development and utilization of land as transport communication and commercial, residential and institutional for Sector 61, Faridabad. It is further submitted that the award in the present case was passed on 30.04.1998 and the possession was taken vide rapat roznamcha No.293 dated 30.04.1998 and the entire compensation had already been NARESH KUMAR 2026.08.31 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26035-2016 -2- tendered. It is stated that the present writ petition has been filed after a delay of 18 years from the date of passing 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. 3. On 13.07.2026, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that notice be issued to the petitioner, accordingly, the notice was issued to the petitioner. In spite of the same, today again no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner to inform the Court as to whether the petitioner wishes to pursue the present writ petition or not. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to revive the same in case the petitioner wants to pursue the present writ petition or in case any cause survives. 5. Registry is directed to send a copy of the present order to the petitioner on the address mentioned in the memo of parties. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE (DIVYA SHARMA) JUDGE August 27, 2026 naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No NARESH KUMAR 2026.08.31 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document