CWP No.9907 of 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Puma Realtors Private Limited Versus State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Maninder Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab, For respondent No.1. Ms. Avin Sandhu, Advocate with Mr. Maninder Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4. Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate, for respondent No. LAPITA BANERJI, J. Prayer in the present petition Constitution of India 2013 (Annexure P 1894 (for short “1894 Act”) September 09, 201 CWP No.9907 of 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.9907 OF 2025 (O&M) RESERVED ON: MAY 15, 2025 DATE OF DECISION Puma Realtors Private Limited Versus State of Punjab and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, Advocate, or the petitioner. Mr. Maninder Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab, For respondent No.1. Ms. Avin Sandhu, Advocate with Mr. Maninder Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4. Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate, or respondent No.5-private builder. LAPITA BANERJI, J. Prayer in the present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is, inter-alia, for quashing of notifications dated May 09 2013 (Annexure P-10) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition 1894 (for short “1894 Act”) along with quashing of declaration dated , 2013 (Annexure P-11) issued under Section 6 of the 1894 Act p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 9907 OF 2025 (O&M) RESERVED ON: MAY 15, 2025 DATE OF DECISION: MAY 29, 2025 …Petitioner …Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, Advocate, Mr. Maninder Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab, . filed under Articles 226/227 of the quashing of notifications dated May 09, 10) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, along with quashing of declaration dated issued under Section 6 of the 1894 Act SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.29 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.9907 of 2025 (O&M) and subsequent proceedings taken thereunder for acquisition of the petitioner’s land. 2. The brief facts which led to the present dispute i) The petitioner entered into an agreement on April 03, 2006 (Annexure P-4) with the State of Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development for setting up Capital periphery area in an a ii) Thereafter developing an integrated township at Mohali over the petitioner company on February 19, 2008 of a sum of Rs.10,04,14,000/ Punjab. iii) A supplementary agreement P-12) was entered into between the parties in continuation of the agreement dated April 03, 2006 for se iv) Notification under Section 4 dated May 09, 2013 was issued for acquiring 1.981 petitioner company No.5//17 min (0 Khasra No.2/2 (5 No.293. v) Notification under Section 6 was issued on September 09, 2013 for 1.981 acres of land belonging to the petitioner in village Dhol. Notice under Section 9 of the 1894 Act was issued on July 15, 2024 (Annexure P inviting objections before CWP No.9907 of 2025 (O&M) subsequent proceedings taken thereunder for acquisition of the petitioner’s land. The brief facts which led to the present dispute The petitioner entered into an agreement on April 03, 2006 with the State of Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development for setting up Mega Housing Project in Mohali or Chandigarh periphery area in an area of 300 acres of land. Thereafter, Change of Land Use developing an integrated township at Mohali over the petitioner company on February 19, 2008 (Annexure P of a sum of Rs.10,04,14,000/- by the State through A supplementary agreement dated was entered into between the parties in continuation of the agreement dated April 03, 2006 for setting up of the project over Notification under Section 4 dated May 09, 2013 was issued for acres of land situated in village Dhol belonging to the petitioner company out of the said 145.51 acres. The land is situated at Khasra -18), Khasra No.25/1 min (0-13), Khasra No.12/8/1 (1 Khasra No.2/2 (5-7), Khasra No.3/1 (5-1), Khasra No.9/2 (2 Notification under Section 6 was issued on September 09, 2013 acres of land belonging to the petitioner in village Dhol. Notice under Section 9 of the 1894 Act was issued on July 15, 2024 (Annexure P inviting objections before passing of the Award in respect of p. 2 subsequent proceedings taken thereunder for acquisition of the The brief facts which led to the present dispute are as follows: The petitioner entered into an agreement on April 03, 2006 with the State of Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban roject in Mohali or Chandigarh acres of land. se (for short “CLU”) for developing an integrated township at Mohali over 141.15 acres was granted to (Annexure P-5), upon payment State through Chief Town Planner, dated June 23, 2017 (Annexure was entered into between the parties in continuation of the agreement g up of the project over 145.51 acres of land. Notification under Section 4 dated May 09, 2013 was issued for acres of land situated in village Dhol belonging to the . The land is situated at Khasra 13), Khasra No.12/8/1 (1-18), 1), Khasra No.9/2 (2-0), Had-bast Notification under Section 6 was issued on September 09, 2013 acres of land belonging to the petitioner in village Dhol. Notice under Section 9 of the 1894 Act was issued on July 15, 2024 (Annexure P-8) passing of the Award in respect of 07 kanals 03 SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.29 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.9907 of 2025 (O&M) marlas of land belonging to the p Collector, out of 1.981 acres. The land under acquisition is a part of 145.51 acres for which CLU has been granted to the petitioner company. vi) The from time to time vide office orders dated February 01 and February 20, 2025. vii) The last extension was February 20, 2025 extension fee of Rs.25,000/ viii) No challenge to the acquisition proceedings initiated by the government was made by the petitioner company notification under Sections 4 and 6 i ix) Admittedly preferred by the petitioner company. x) Some of the land owners challenged the said acquisition proceedings notified vide Section 6 notification filing CWP No.25843 Punjab and others xi) By an interim order, the acquisition proceedings petitioner were initially stayed upon issuing of notice of motion, a Co the parties to maintain status xii) The writ petition was finally disposed of vide judgment dated April 18, 2024 where CWP No.9907 of 2025 (O&M) of land belonging to the petitioner company by the Land Acquisition Collector, out of 1.981 acres. The land under acquisition is a part of 145.51 acres for which CLU has been granted to the petitioner company. The time for implementation of the om time to time vide office orders dated February 01 and February 20, 2025. The last extension was given by the Government of Punjab on , 2025 for a period of two years upto December 31, 2025 for an extension fee of Rs.25,000/- per acre, per year. No challenge to the acquisition proceedings initiated by the government was made by the petitioner company ication under Sections 4 and 6 in 2013. Admittedly, no objection under Section 5 preferred by the petitioner company. Some of the land owners challenged the said acquisition proceedings notified vide Section 6 notification CWP No.25843 of 2013 “Hargobind Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others”. By an interim order, the acquisition proceedings were initially stayed. By an interim order dated December upon issuing of notice of motion, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed the parties to maintain status-quo. The writ petition was finally disposed of vide judgment dated April 18, 2024 whereby the notifications were upheld and an Awa p. 3 etitioner company by the Land Acquisition Collector, out of 1.981 acres. The land under acquisition is a part of 145.51 acres for which CLU has been granted to the petitioner company. housing project was extended om time to time vide office orders dated February 01, 2023, June 05, 2024 by the Government of Punjab on for a period of two years upto December 31, 2025 for an No challenge to the acquisition proceedings initiated by the government was made by the petitioner company since the publication of the no objection under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act was Some of the land owners challenged the said acquisition proceedings notified vide Section 6 notification dated September 09, 2013 by Hargobind Singh and others v. State of By an interim order, the acquisition proceedings against the writ By an interim order dated December 02, 2013, ordinate Bench of this Court directed The writ petition was finally disposed of vide judgment dated the notifications were upheld and an Award was SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.29 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.9907 of 2025 (O&M) directed to be passed by the Collector concerned in terms of Section 1894 Act, within a period of two months from the date xiii) A Special Leave Petition No. and others v. State of Punjab Apex Court. Vide order dated July 29, 2024 regard to determination of the compensation. The appeal acquisition proceedings was not entertained. xiv) By virtue of the acquisition proceedings qua land Khasra No.5//17 min (0 (1-18), Khasra No.2/2 (5 attained finality. 3. Mr. Patwalia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the 2018. The resolution plan was accepted Law Tribunal (NCLT) management stepped into the shoes of the previous Successful Resolution dated July 15, 2024 Acquisition Collector proceedings for the first time 4. The petitioner vide that by the time the notice under Section 9 was rece 01, 2024, the date f CWP No.9907 of 2025 (O&M) directed to be passed by the Collector concerned in terms of Section 1894 Act, within a period of two months from the date A Special Leave Petition No. 29099 of 2024 and others v. State of Punjab and others” and Vide order dated July 29, 2024 a notice was issued regard to determination of the compensation. The appeal acquisition proceedings was not entertained. By virtue of order dated July 29, 2024 passed by the Apex Court, he acquisition proceedings qua land measuring 1.981 acres Khasra No.5//17 min (0-18), Khasra No.25/1 min (0 18), Khasra No.2/2 (5-7), Khasra No.3/1 (5 attained finality. Mr. Patwalia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner company went i 2018. The resolution plan was accepted by the Learned National Company l (NCLT) on June 01, 2021 and on June 02, 2021, the new management stepped into the shoes of the previous esolution Applicant. He further submits that dated July 15, 2024 under Section 9 of the 1894 Act Acquisition Collector, the petitioner company learnt for the first time. The petitioner vide reply dated August 06, 2024 agitat that by the time the notice under Section 9 was rece he date for personal hearing fixed on July 31, 2024 p. 4 directed to be passed by the Collector concerned in terms of Section 11 of the 1894 Act, within a period of two months from the date of the judgment. 29099 of 2024 “Hargobind Singh and was filed before the Hon’ble a notice was issued only with regard to determination of the compensation. The appeal challenging the order dated July 29, 2024 passed by the Apex Court, measuring 1.981 acres comprising of 18), Khasra No.25/1 min (0-13), Khasra No.12/8/1 7), Khasra No.3/1 (5-1), Khasra No.9/2 (2-0), Mr. Patwalia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the company went into resolution process in by the Learned National Company and on June 02, 2021, the new management stepped into the shoes of the previous management being the He further submits that, when the notice of the 1894 Act was issued by the Land learnt about the land acquisition dated August 06, 2024 agitated the fact that by the time the notice under Section 9 was received by them on August hearing fixed on July 31, 2024 had gone by. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.29 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.9907 of 2025 (O&M) Therefore, the acquisition proceedings hearing was required to be given to the petitioner 5. Mr. Patwalia Section 6 notification was issued by the State on September 09, 201 acquisition has been upheld upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the State extended the original agreement dated April 03, 2006 vide supp agreement dated June 23, 2017 and thereafter granted several extensions upto December 31, 2025 abuse of process of law and the State cannot land in question. If such an illegal act on the part of the State is allowed, would cause great prejudice to the petitioner company. intent on the part of to acquire the land in question for another private builder not be permitted by the Court. 6. Issue Notice. 7. Mr. Maninder Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 accepts notice on behalf of Dawar, Advocate accepts notice on be 8. It is submitted State-respondent No.1 that since th finality, no grievance relating to the same issue can be entertained. ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated April 18, 2024, upheld the acquisition proceedings and directed an Award to be passed within months from the date of the order. Compensation for the land was directed to CWP No.9907 of 2025 (O&M) Therefore, the acquisition proceedings had to be stayed hearing was required to be given to the petitioner Mr. Patwalia vehemently argues that knowing fully well that Section 6 notification was issued by the State on September 09, 201 has been upheld upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the State extended the original agreement dated April 03, 2006 vide supp agreement dated June 23, 2017 and thereafter granted several extensions upto December 31, 2025 such conduct on the part of the State was arbitrary and in abuse of process of law and the State cannot now . If such an illegal act on the part of the State is allowed, would cause great prejudice to the petitioner company. intent on the part of the State is borne out by the fact that the State is to acquire the land in question for another private builder not be permitted by the Court. Issue Notice. Mr. Maninder Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, accepts on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Ms. Avin accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4 Dawar, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of private respondent No.5 It is submitted by learned Counsel appearing respondent No.1 that since the acquisition proceedings have attained no grievance relating to the same issue can be entertained. ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated April 18, 2024, upheld the acquisition proceedings and directed an Award to be passed within months from the date of the order. Compensation for the land was directed to p. 5 to be stayed and an opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the petitioner company. ehemently argues that knowing fully well that Section 6 notification was issued by the State on September 09, 2013 and such has been upheld upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the State extended the original agreement dated April 03, 2006 vide supplementary agreement dated June 23, 2017 and thereafter granted several extensions upto such conduct on the part of the State was arbitrary and in now be permitted to acquire the . If such an illegal act on the part of the State is allowed, it would cause great prejudice to the petitioner company. The clear mala fide borne out by the fact that the State is seeking to acquire the land in question for another private builder and the same should Mr. Maninder Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, accepts Ms. Avin Sandhu, Advocate, No.2 to 4-GMADA. Mr. Kunal half of private respondent No.5. by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the e acquisition proceedings have attained no grievance relating to the same issue can be entertained. A Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated April 18, 2024, upheld the acquisition proceedings and directed an Award to be passed within two months from the date of the order. Compensation for the land was directed to SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.29 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.9907 of 2025 (O&M) be deposited forthwith before the Collector for users. Challenge to the acquisition proceedings was dismissed by the Apex Court in SLP No.2909 issue that remained open was 9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent there was no fault on project from time to time as GMADA was not aware of the khasra numbers which were under acquisition. 10. Mr. Dawar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5-private builder submits that r 700 acres in Sector Kanals 03 Marlas acquired for developing a township for housing people. fide intent on the part of the government to acquire the land for respondent No.5 as parts of 07 Kanals land was situated right in the middle of the proposed project of the respondent No.5. Furthermore, despite extension petitioner company h acquisition by filing objections under Section 5 11. He relies on a judgment of Apex Court “ Gurdip Singh Uban and others” it cannot be now urged on behalf of the petitioner that the land of the objector that is sought to be acquired which the objector is placed, it is a fit case for omitting its land from t acquisition. The only object filing an objection under Section 5 CWP No.9907 of 2025 (O&M) be deposited forthwith before the Collector for release of the same to the land users. Challenge to the acquisition proceedings was dismissed by the Apex Court in SLP No.29099 of 2024 vide order dated that remained open was with regard to compensation. Learned counsel appearing for respondent there was no fault on its part in extending the time to complete the housing project from time to time as GMADA was not aware of the khasra numbers which were under acquisition. Mr. Dawar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent private builder submits that respondent No.5 700 acres in Sector-105 whereas the petitioner’s land admea 03 Marlas is situated in pockets. The aforesaid 700 acres of acquired for developing a township for housing people. fide intent on the part of the government to acquire the land for respondent No.5 as parts of 07 Kanals land was situated right in the middle of the proposed project of the respondent No.5. Furthermore, despite extension petitioner company has neither started the project nor challenged the acquisition by filing objections under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act. He relies on a judgment of Apex Court “ Gurdip Singh Uban and others” reported in (2000) 7 it cannot be now urged on behalf of the petitioner that the land of the objector that is sought to be acquired, is not necessary or in the special fact situation in which the objector is placed, it is a fit case for omitting its land from t acquisition. The only objection that the petitioner could have taken without filing an objection under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act p. 6 release of the same to the land users. Challenge to the acquisition proceedings was dismissed by the Apex vide order dated July 29, 2024 and the only with regard to compensation. Learned counsel appearing for respondent-GMADA submits that part in extending the time to complete the housing project from time to time as GMADA was not aware of the khasra numbers Mr. Dawar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent espondent No.5 is the owner of more than the petitioner’s land admeasuring about 07 aforesaid 700 acres of land was acquired for developing a township for housing people. There was no mala fide intent on the part of the government to acquire the land for respondent No.5 as parts of 07 Kanals land was situated right in the middle of the proposed project of the respondent No.5. Furthermore, despite extension, the as neither started the project nor challenged the A of the 1894 Act. He relies on a judgment of Apex Court “Delhi Administration v. (2000) 7 SCC 296 to submit that it cannot be now urged on behalf of the petitioner that the land of the objector is not necessary or in the special fact situation in which the objector is placed, it is a fit case for omitting its land from the ion that the petitioner could have taken without A of the 1894 Act, was that the purpose for SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.29 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.9907 of 2025 (O&M) which the land was acquired was not a public one. Reliance is paragraphs 53 and 54 of reproduced herein below: “xxx 53. contention that (i) the purpose for which land is being acquired is not a public purpose, (ii) that even purpose, of the objector is not necessary, in the sense that the public purpose could be served by other land already proposed or some other land to which the objector event, even if this land is necessary for the public purpose, the special fact case for omitting his land from the acquisition. Objection (ii) is personal to the land an objector. 54. personal and if objections have not been filed, the notification must be conclusive proof that the said person had “waived” all objections which were personal and which he could have raised. However, so far as not filed, the affected party can challenge in Court that the purpose was not a public purpose. Xxx” 12. Mr. Dawar, this Court dated February and others” reported in filed objections under Section 5 by the doctrine of legal rights. Once the his claim and being a trespasser he loses the locus to challenge the acquisition proceedings. He also relies on the decision of Supreme Court dated 25, 1996 “M/s Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. The State of Haryana and ors. CWP No.9907 of 2025 (O&M) which the land was acquired was not a public one. Reliance is paragraphs 53 and 54 of the judgment, in support of his contentions, which are reproduced herein below: “xxx Now objections under Section 5 contention that (i) the purpose for which land is being acquired is not a public purpose, (ii) that even purpose, (ii) that even if the purpose is a public purpose, the land of the objector is not necessary, in the sense that the public purpose could be served by other land already proposed or some other land to which the objector may re event, even if this land is necessary for the public purpose, the special fact-situation in which the objector is placed, it is a fit case for omitting his land from the acquisition. Objection (ii) is personal to the land and Objection (iii) is personal to the objector. Now in the (ii) and (iii) types of objections, there is a personal element which has to be pleaded in Section 5 and if objections have not been filed, the notification must be conclusive proof that the said person had “waived” all objections which were personal and which he could have raised. However, so far as Objection (i) is concerned, even in case objections are not filed, the affected party can challenge in Court that the purpose was not a public purpose. Xxx” Mr. Dawar, also relies on a judgment of a Co this Court dated February 03, 2022 “Desraj and others v. State of Haryana reported in 2022(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 298 filed objections under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act, the petitioner is by the doctrine of acquiescence from complaining legal rights. Once the vesting takes place, the land owner has no title to assert his claim and being a trespasser he loses the locus to challenge the acquisition proceedings. He also relies on the decision of Supreme Court dated M/s Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. The State of Haryana and ors. Page 7 of 9 which the land was acquired was not a public one. Reliance is placed on the judgment, in support of his contentions, which are Now objections under Section 5-A, if filed, can relate to the contention that (i) the purpose for which land is being acquired is not a public purpose, (ii) that even if the purpose is a public (ii) that even if the purpose is a public purpose, the land of the objector is not necessary, in the sense that the public purpose could be served by other land already proposed or some may refer, or (iii) that in any event, even if this land is necessary for the public purpose, the situation in which the objector is placed, it is a fit case for omitting his land from the acquisition. Objection (ii) is d Objection (iii) is personal to the Now in the (ii) and (iii) types of objections, there is a element which has to be pleaded in Section 5-A inquiry and if objections have not been filed, the notification must be conclusive proof that the said person had “waived” all objections which were personal and which he could have raised. However, Objection (i) is concerned, even in case objections are not filed, the affected party can challenge in Court that the also relies on a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of Desraj and others v. State of Haryana 2022(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 298 to submit that having not A of the 1894 Act, the petitioner is estopped from complaining about the violation of its takes place, the land owner has no title to assert his claim and being a trespasser he loses the locus to challenge the acquisition proceedings. He also relies on the decision of Supreme Court dated September M/s Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. The State of Haryana and ors.,” SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.29 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.9907 of 2025 (O&M) reported in 1996 (11) SCC 698 Section 6 of the 1894 Act is notice to the world at large and entered into after the publication of notification under Section 4 (1) does not bind the State Government or the beneficiary for whose benefit the land was acquired. 13. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 14. Undisputed facts are that May 09, 2013 and 2013. Admittedly of the petitioner compan was filed under Section 5 15. It is trite law that change in management of the company due to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) cannot be defence for not challenging the acquisition proceedings. No suitable explanation has been dated May 06, 2025 for condonation of delay in filing years from issuance of notifications under 2013. 16. It is pertinent to note that the acquisition proceedings relating to same notifications have attained finality til the State has been extending the agreement for development of the housing project from time to time. writ petition admeasuring extension has been granted for completion of the project CWP No.9907 of 2025 (O&M) 1996 (11) SCC 698, to submit that notice under Section 4 (1) and Section 6 of the 1894 Act is notice to the world at large and entered into after the publication of notification under Section 4 (1) does not bind the State Government or the beneficiary for whose benefit the land was This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused al on record. Undisputed facts are that the Section 4 notification was issued on May 09, 2013 and the Section 6 notification was issued on September 09, 2013. Admittedly, the previous management was the of the petitioner company till 2018. Despite the aforesaid fact, no objection was filed under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act. It is trite law that change in management of the company due to Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) cannot be not challenging the acquisition proceedings. No suitable has been provided or no sufficient cause is shown dated May 06, 2025 for condonation of delay in filing years from issuance of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act in It is pertinent to note that the acquisition proceedings relating to same notifications have attained finality till the Supreme Court. It is true the State has been extending the agreement for development of the housing project from time to time. It is also true that the land in question in the present writ petition admeasuring 07 Kanals 03 Marlas en granted for completion of the project p. 8 to submit that notice under Section 4 (1) and Section 6 of the 1894 Act is notice to the world at large and any contract entered into after the publication of notification under Section 4 (1) does not bind the State Government or the beneficiary for whose benefit the land was This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused Section 4 notification was issued on notification was issued on September 09, , the previous management was the management-in-control y till 2018. Despite the aforesaid fact, no objection It is trite law that change in management of the company due to Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) cannot be resorted to as a not challenging the acquisition proceedings. No suitable provided or no sufficient cause is shown in affidavit dated May 06, 2025 for condonation of delay in filing the writ petition after 12 Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act in It is pertinent to note that the acquisition proceedings relating to l the Supreme Court. It is true that the State has been extending the agreement for development of the housing he land in question in the present is part of 111.76 acres where en granted for completion of the project but the negligence on SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.29 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.9907 of 2025 (O&M) the part of the Chief Ad setting aside the acquisition proceedings which have attained finality belated stage. The present writ pet and acquiescence for which the petitioner cannot be granted any relief. 17. On merits, this Court finds that since the petitioner’s land in pockets admeasures only 07 Kanals (approximately) as opposed to 700 acres (approximately) acquired by the cannot be held that the acquisition of the petitioner’s land was either arbitrary or done with mala fide intent for e 18. In the light of aforesaid discussion, CWP No.9907 of 2025, 19. Connected applications, if any, are also accordingly disposed of. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE MAY 29, 2025 shalini Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : CWP No.9907 of 2025 (O&M) the part of the Chief Administrator, PUDA, SAS Nagar the acquisition proceedings which have attained finality The present writ petition is clearly barred by delay and laches and acquiescence for which the petitioner cannot be granted any relief. On merits, this Court finds that since the petitioner’s land admeasures only 07 Kanals (approximately) as opposed to 700 acres (approximately) acquired by the State for respondent No.5 cannot be held that the acquisition of the petitioner’s land was either arbitrary or done with mala fide intent for extraneous reasons. In the light of aforesaid discussion, 9907 of 2025, is dismissed. Connected applications, if any, are also accordingly disposed of. (DEEPAK SIBAL) (LAPITA BANERJI) Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No p. 9 ministrator, PUDA, SAS Nagar cannot be a ground for the acquisition proceedings which have attained finality, at such a ition is clearly barred by delay and laches and acquiescence for which the petitioner cannot be granted any relief. . On merits, this Court finds that since the petitioner’s land situated admeasures only 07 Kanals (approximately) as opposed to 700 respondent No.5. Therefore, it cannot be held that the acquisition of the petitioner’s land was either arbitrary xtraneous reasons. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the instant writ petition being Connected applications, if any, are also accordingly disposed of. (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.29 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document