CWP-26469-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Rajbir Singh Sehrawat State of Haryana and others CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Rohan Moudgil, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. DEEPAK SIBAL Through the instant petition, the acquired land on the ground that the respondent 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties record, the following undisputed facts have emerged: i) T of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, declared its intention to acquire commercial development in ii) Since the land in question found mention in the aforesaid Notification dated 28.03.1985, t Attar Singh filed apparently 2025 (O&M) Sr. No.113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-26469 Date of Decision : jbir Singh Sehrawat Versus State of Haryana and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Rohan Moudgil, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. *** SIBAL, J. (Oral) Through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks release of land on the ground that presently the the respondent-State for any public purpose. After hearing learned counsel for the parties the following undisputed facts have emerged: Through Notification dated 28.03.1985 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, declared its intention to acquire land in Gurugra commercial development in Urban Estate, Gurugram. Since the land in question found mention in the aforesaid Notification dated 28.03.1985, the father of the petitioner, namely, Attar Singh filed objections under Section 5 apparently, the same were rejected as the petitioner IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 26469-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 10.02.2026 …Petitioner …Respondents DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. petitioner seeks release of his presently the same cannot be utilized by After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the the following undisputed facts have emerged:- hrough Notification dated 28.03.1985, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), the State land in Gurugram for residential and state, Gurugram. Since the land in question found mention in the aforesaid he father of the petitioner, namely, under Section 5-A of the Act but were rejected as the petitioner’s acquired land in VANDANA 2026.02.13 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26469-2025 question found mention in by the State under Section 6 of the Act. iii) the Land determined compensation was paid father and iv) through Rapat petitioner’s land vested in the State. 3. In the light of t unexplained delay of 37 years reason that as per the layout plan a R-1) the petitioner’s acquired land stands utilized towards planning of a 10 metre road and 24 in dismissing the instant petition and 4. No February 10, 2026 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) question found mention in the Notification dated 15.01.1986 by the State under Section 6 of the Act. Thereafter, award dated 14.01.19 and Acquisition Collector (LAC) rmined compensation was paid and accepted by t father and that Possession of the land in question was through Rapat Roznamcha No.321 dated 14.01.1988 after petitioner’s land vested in the State. In the light of the afore facts and because there is an unexplained delay of 37 years in filing of the present petition as also for the reason that as per the layout plan attached with the State’s reply (Annexure 1) the petitioner’s acquired land stands utilized towards planning of a 10 metre road and 24-metre road in Sector-5, Gurugram, w in dismissing the instant petition and it is so ordered. No costs. (DEEPAK SIBAL JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE , 2026 ther speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Notification dated 15.01.1986, issued by the State under Section 6 of the Act. award dated 14.01.1988 was announced by ollector (LAC) in terms whereof the and accepted by the petitioner’s of the land in question was taken by the State No.321 dated 14.01.1988 after which the he afore facts and because there is an in filing of the present petition as also for the ttached with the State’s reply (Annexure 1) the petitioner’s acquired land stands utilized towards planning of a 10- 5, Gurugram, we have no hesitation is so ordered. DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2026.02.13 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document