CWP-27010-2016 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP-27010-2016 Reserved on: 06.03.2025 Pronounced on: 01.04.2025 OM PARKASH AND ORS. .....Petitioners Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Argued by: Mr. Anil Dutt, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana, Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Addl. A.G., Haryana, Mr. P.P.Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana, Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana, Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana and Mr. Karan Jindal, Asstt. A.G., Haryana. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate, Mr. Gurcharan Kaur, Advocate, Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate, Ms. Sharvi Dadhwal, Advocate and Ms. Saanvi Singla, Advocate for respondent No. 4 – HSIIDC. **** SURESHWAR THAKUR , J. 1. The decision made by this Court on 04.12.2017, upon, CWP No. 27010 of 2016, became assailed by the aggrieved before the Apex Court, through filing of Civil Appeal No. 3724 of 2024, wherebys the said appeal became allowed and the lis became remanded by the KAVNEET SINGH 2025.04.05 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27010-2016 -2- Hon'ble Apex Court on 29.02.2024 for making a decision afresh. The relevant part of the order thereof, becomes extracted hereinafter. “Accordingly, the impugned order stands set aside and the matters are remitted back to the High Court to be decided on the issues other than the one covering the field in Indore Development Authority (Supra).” 2. A reading of the above extracted order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, on the apposite Civil Appeal, reveals that this Court is not required to either delve into or to make an adjudication vis- a-vis the applicability of the provisions enshrined in Section 24 (2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, vis-a-vis, the present petitioners, but rather is required to answer/adjudicate in respect of other issues as have arisen in the instant writ petition. For the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and is constrained to dismiss the same. 3. A perusal of paragraph No. 8 of the reply dated 10.02.2025, reveals that the petitioners filed objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter for short called as the Act of 1894). The DRA cum LAC after hearing the objections and inspecting the site, recommended to release 10 marla land of the petitioners, whereons, residential structure and flour mill (Atta Chakki) existed, and, accordingly, the said land was not included in the notification made under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. 4. Moreover, the award in respect of the subject lands became pronounced on 28.11.2008 and possession of the acquired lands was delivered to the HSIIDC vide patwari rapat rojnamcha No. 200 dated KAVNEET SINGH 2025.04.05 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27010-2016 -3- 28.11.2008. The mutation in respect of the subject lands became sanctioned in favour of HSIIDC in the year 2010. 5. Moreover, when it is further indicated in the reply, on affidavit, furnished to the writ petition, by the respondent concerned, that out of the total amount of assessed compensation, the petitioners herein have lifted their assessed compensation amount. 6. The effect of the above, is that, thereby the petitioners are deemed to accept the validity of the launching of the acquisition proceedings, and therebys they are rather estopped from challenging the validity of the launching of the acquisition proceedings. 7. Further, since it has also been indicated in paragraph No.15 of the reply on affidavit, that a 20 meter wide internal road, thus is passing through the land involved in the instant writ petition, wherebys, it ex facie becomes revealed that the present subject lands, do become vested in the HSIIDC. 8. The further corollary thereof, but is that, since 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. 9. Moreover, the plea of the petitioners qua theirs still lawfully retaining the possession over the subject lands, is a mis- founded plea, as, the occupation, if any, of the petitioners, over the KAVNEET SINGH 2025.04.05 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27010-2016 -4- subject lands rather is as trespassers thereovers and the petitioners are required to be lawfully evicted therefroms. 10. 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. 11. No order as to costs. 12. Since the main case itself has been decided, thus, all the pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE (VIKAS SURI) 01.04.2025 JUDGE kavneet singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KAVNEET SINGH 2025.04.05 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document