CWP-23543-2015 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-23543-2015 (O&M) Reserved on: 13.02.2025 Pronounced on: 26.03.2025 VINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS .....Petitioners Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Argued by: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate and Ms. Richa Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Addl. A.G., Haryana Mr. P.P.Chahar, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana Mr. Saurabh Mago, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana and Mr. Karan Jindal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. P.S.Chauhan, Advocate Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Chabbra, Advocate Ms. Gurcharan Kaur, Advocate Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate and Ms. Saanvi Singla, Advocate for respondent No.3 – HSVP. **** SURESHWAR THAKUR , J. 1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner asks for relief qua de-notification or for release of the petition lands, thus on the ground, that the notification(s) Annexure P-2, and, Annexure P-3, as became respectively issued on 27.11.2003, and, 24.11.2004, hence in ITHLESH KUMAR terms of Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter 2025.04.03 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-23543-2015 (O&M) -2- for short called as the ‘Act of 1894’), besides the subsequent award dated 22.11.2006 (Annexure P-4) thus inviting the mandate of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter for short refer to as the 'Act of 2013'), whereby there occurs lapsing of the earlier launched acquisition proceedings under the 'Act of 1894'. 2. The instant writ petition became earlier allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 29.01.2018, thereby holding that the acquisition proceedings qua the land of the petitioners stand lapsed in view of the Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. Relevant paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereinafter. “[8] In the light of the above discussion, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned acquisition qua the land or the properties of the petitioners is declared to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. However, on the analogy of the cited decisions, it is directed that the petitioners shall not change the nature of the land/properties and shall not create any third party rights in the released land for a period of one year so that if their subject property/land is required by the State for the notified public purpose, it may re-acquire the same in accordance with the 2013 Act. Even if the State Government decides not to acquire the petitioners' land, it is directed that the released land shall be used in conformity with the development plan of the area and the petitioners shall not be permitted tocarry out any unauthorised/impermissible activity at the released property. Likewise, the petitioners shall be liable to pay the development charges in accordance with law. As regard to the development of green belt at Gurugram-Sohana Road for which a very small portion of the land of petitioners in CWP No.23543 of 2015 is required, we direct that let compensation qua that land be assessed under Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act and be released to the owners to the extent their land is to be utilised for the above mentioned public purpose. ITHLESH KUMAR 2025.04.03 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-23543-2015 (O&M) -3- Similarly, in CWP No.4000 of 2017 the acquired land under occupation of Gair Morushi to the extent it is required for construction of road etc. shall be utilised free of cost whereas the acquisition qua the remaining land shall be taken to have lapsed in the above terms.” 3. Against the said judgment passed by this Court on 29.01.2018, the respondent-State approached the Apex Court through its filing SLP(C) Diary No.13236 of 2019. Vide judgment dated 22.03.2024, the apposite SLP was allowed, and, the impugned judgment dated 29.01.2018, as passed by this Court was quashed and set aside, and further remanded the instant lis to this Court for deciding it on the issues other than the one covering the field in 'Indore Development Authority Versus Manoharlal and others', to which SLP (Civil) Nos. 9036-9038 of 2016. Relevant paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereinafter. “4. Having heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants – State of Haryana and the learned counsels for respondents at length and after carefully perusing the material placed on record, it appears that the High Court had declared the acquisition proceedings in question as lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. However, it is not disputed by the learned counsels for the parties that in view of the later decision in the case of “Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal And Ors. Etc.” reported in (2020) 8 SCC (129), the matters are required to be remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration. 5. In view of the above, the impugned orders passed by the High Court are set aside and the matters are remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in the light of the Judgment in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). 6. It is clarified that all contentions are kept open to be ITHLESH KUMAR 2025.04.03 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-23543-2015 (O&M) -4- raised by both the parties as may be legally permissible. 7. The appeals stand allowed in above terms. 8. All pending applications including applications for condonation of delay in setting aside abate, setting aside abatement and substitution are also rejected.” 4. The present petitioners would be entitled to the espoused writ relief(s), as relates to this Court, thus declaring rather lapsed the extantly drawn acquisition proceedings, but only when the provisions embodied in Section 24(2) of the 'Act of 2013', become proved to become breached by the respondents. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the asked for relief qua the making of a lapsing declaration rather cannot be accorded by this Court. 5. Primarily for the reason, that the present petitioner would be entitled to coax this Court to declare the launching of the acquisition proceedings under the Act of 1894, to thus become lapsed, but only when the respondent-State, rather had completely failed to, in terms of the verdict rendered by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Indore Development Authority versus Manohar Lal and others, reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, adduce sufficient/clinching discharging evidence, in respect of the duo parameters, inasmuch as, (i) qua rapat possession being made over the acquired lands, (ii) and, qua the compensation, as became determined by the Collector concerned, becoming deposited for therebys its becoming available for being released to the land losers concerned, besides the said events evidently happening before the coming into force of the 'Act of 2013'. 6. To determine the above, it is necessary to refer to the reply on affidavit, already on record. A reading of the paragraph No.26 of the ITHLESH KUMAR 2025.04.03 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-23543-2015 (O&M) -5- reply on affidavit, reveals, that possession over the acquired lands became assumed through Rapat No.170 dated 22.11.2006 and Rapat No.55 dated 29.09.2009. 7. Moreover, when it is further indicated in the reply, on affidavit, furnished to the writ petition, by the respondents concerned, that out of the total amount of assessed compensation, under award dated 22.11.2006, an amount of Rs.2,93,69,678/- out of Rs. 15,58,23,374/- has already been accepted by the landowners concerned. Furthermore, it has been stated that as far as the compensation of the land of the petitioner is concerned, despite the same becoming tendered, yet the petitioner not seeking disbursement(s) thereof, and the same is lying deposited in the LAC account, for therebys it becoming available for becoming released to the land losers concerned. 8. In consequence, since both the above events took place prior to the coming into force of the 'Act of 2013', resultantly, in terms of the verdict recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Indore Development Authority’s case (supra), the present petitioners are not entitled to make any espousal before this Court, that a lapsing declaration be made in terms of Section 24(2) of the 'Act of 2013'. In sequel, the above made writ claim is declined. 9. Further, a reading of para No.5 of the reply, on affidavit, it is revealed that the predecessor of the petitioners filed objections under Section 5-A of the 'Act of 1894', before the Collector concerned claiming construction of shops, residential house etc. However, since the land was affecting the proposed planning of 30 meter wide green belt and 12 meter wide service road, thereupon the LAC, Urban Estates, Haryana, Gurugram, recommended for acquisition of the land in ITHLESH KUMAR 2025.04.03 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-23543-2015 (O&M) -6- question. 10. Moreover, the plea of the petitioners qua theirs still lawfully retaining possession over the subject lands, is a mis-founded plea, as, the occupation of the petitioners, over the subject lands rather is as trespassers thereovers and the petitioners are required to be lawfully evicted therefroms. 11. Conspicuously also since it has been stated, in the reply on affidavit, already on record, that the subject lands are an integral component of the layout plans, thereby when they are facilitating the relevant public purposes. Consequently, when public purpose than the individualistic interest is rather to be furthered. Resultantly, this Court finds no merit in the instant petition, and, is constrained to dismiss it. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits, that the lands of Sector 48 and 33 Gurgaon have been released in favour of other landowners. Therefore, the petitioners claim that since the lands of those land-losers who are but similarly situated to the present petitioners, have been released, whereas, the respondents not releasing the lands of the present petitioners. Resultantly, therebys it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the respondents have practiced discrimination against the present petitioners, thus through theirs not releasing the lands of the petitioners from acquisition. 13. As per paragraph 12 to 14 of the reply furnished by co- respondents No.1 and 2, to the instant writ petition, it is mentioned that the father of petitioner Nos.1, 5 and 6 and present petitioners Nos.2, 3 and 4 had earlier filed CWP-7542 of 2005. The said petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 16.07.2005 in terms of order dated 16.07.2005 passed in CWP-10845-2005. Subsequently, the High ITHLESH KUMAR 2025.04.03 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-23543-2015 (O&M) -7- Powered Committee constituted by the State of Haryana, in compliance of order dated 16.07.2005, released vide order dated 05.01.2012 their lands bearing Khasra No.233(0-11-0), 234 (0-9-0) of village Islampur, Gurugram. As such, since the said decision is not argued to be unsustainable. Therefore it is clear that the petitioners have not been discriminated by the respondents concerned, thereupons the said argument is rejected being totally baseless. Final Order of this Court. 14. In aftermath, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, and, with the above observations, the same is dismissed. The impugned notification(s), and consequent thereto award are maintained and affirmed. 15. Since the main cases itself has been decided, thus, all the pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE (VIKAS SURI) 26.03.2025 JUDGE Ithlesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No ITHLESH KUMAR 2025.04.03 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment