CWP-4410-2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Attar Singh State of Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE Apex Court vide order dated 02.05.2023 (Annexure R Leave Petition (C) No.20857 of 2022, titled Vs. Hira Singh, re-produced below : “5. abo and without expressing anything on the merits in favour of either of the parties, we set aside the impugned common 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Attar Singh Versus State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. B.S. Rathee, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana, Mr. Karan Jindal, AAG, Haryana, Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate, and Ms. Sharuti Dadwal, Advocate. **** SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral ) This matter has been received back after being remanded by the Apex Court vide order dated 02.05.2023 (Annexure R Leave Petition (C) No.20857 of 2022, titled Vs. Hira Singh, and other connected SLPs produced below :- “5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, without further entering into the merits of the cases and without expressing anything on the merits in favour of either of the parties, we set aside the impugned common -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-4410-2014 Date of decision : 07.05.2025 …….Petitioner ...….Respondents SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana, Mr. Karan Jindal, AAG, Haryana, shaldeep Kaur, Advocate, and Ms. Sharuti Dadwal, Advocate. ( Oral ) This matter has been received back after being remanded by the Apex Court vide order dated 02.05.2023 (Annexure R-1) passed in Special Leave Petition (C) No.20857 of 2022, titled The State of Haryana and others SLPs, the operative portion of which is In view of the above and for the reasons stated e, without further entering into the merits of the cases and without expressing anything on the merits in favour of either of the parties, we set aside the impugned common 2014 .2025 …….Petitioner ...….Respondents This matter has been received back after being remanded by the 1) passed in Special The State of Haryana and others operative portion of which is NAROTAM DASS 2025.05.08 11:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-4410-2014 judgment and order passed by the High Court and remit the matters back to the High C accordance with law and on its own merits and taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) which may be available to the respective part open to be considered by the High Court in accordance with law and on its own merits as observed hereinabove. 6. of the writ petitions on remand at the earliest and preferably within a period of the present order. However, it is observed that the order of remand shall not preclude the State Government in taking any appropriate decision on de contended on behalf of the original lan Kumar Goel (In SLP No. 28803/2018) and the same may be considered in accordance with the law and on its own merits and if permissible under the law. 7. 29.09.2021 passed in SLP (C) Nos. 296 other allied Special Leave Petitions, liberty is reserved in favour of the original writ petitions to make a representation to the State Government in terms of Section 101 Haryana, to be mad desire, which may be decided in accordance with law and on its own merits within a period of four months thereafter, for which we have not expressed anything in favour of either of the parties.” 2. setting aside the common judgment and order of this Court passed on 27.10.22016 in CWP No. 26213/2014 and other allied writ petitions, to decide 2014 judgment and order passed by the High Court and remit the matters back to the High Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits and taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) which may be available to the respective part open to be considered by the High Court in accordance with law and on its own merits as observed hereinabove. 6. We request the High Court to decide and dispose of the writ petitions on remand at the earliest and preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of the present order. However, it is observed that the order of remand shall not preclude the State Government in taking any appropriate decision on de contended on behalf of the original lan Kumar Goel (In SLP No. 28803/2018) and the same may be considered in accordance with the law and on its own merits and if permissible under the law. 7. Similarly, taking into consideration order dated 29.09.2021 passed in SLP (C) Nos. 296 other allied Special Leave Petitions, liberty is reserved in favour of the original writ petitions to make a representation to the State Government in terms of Section 101-A of the Act, 2013, as applicable to the State of Haryana, to be made within a month from today if they so desire, which may be decided in accordance with law and on its own merits within a period of four months thereafter, for which we have not expressed anything in favour of either of the parties.” The Apex Court has remanded the matter to this Court after setting aside the common judgment and order of this Court passed on 27.10.22016 in CWP No. 26213/2014 and other allied writ petitions, to decide -2- judgment and order passed by the High Court and remit the ourt to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits and taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). All the contentions which may be available to the respective parties are kept open to be considered by the High Court in accordance with law and on its own merits as observed hereinabove. We request the High Court to decide and dispose of the writ petitions on remand at the earliest and preferably nine months from the date of receipt of the present order. However, it is observed that the order of remand shall not preclude the State Government in taking any appropriate decision on de-acquisition of the land as contended on behalf of the original land owner – Pritam Kumar Goel (In SLP No. 28803/2018) and the same may be considered in accordance with the law and on its own merits and if permissible under the law. Similarly, taking into consideration order dated 29.09.2021 passed in SLP (C) Nos. 2966-2967/2021 and other allied Special Leave Petitions, liberty is reserved in favour of the original writ petitions to make a representation to the State Government in terms of Section A of the Act, 2013, as applicable to the State of e within a month from today if they so desire, which may be decided in accordance with law and on its own merits within a period of four months thereafter, for which we have not expressed anything in favour of either s remanded the matter to this Court after setting aside the common judgment and order of this Court passed on 27.10.22016 in CWP No. 26213/2014 and other allied writ petitions, to decide s remanded the matter to this Court after setting aside the common judgment and order of this Court passed on 27.10.22016 in CWP No. 26213/2014 and other allied writ petitions, to decide NAROTAM DASS 2025.05.08 11:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-4410-2014 the matter afresh in accordance with law as laid down in the Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others, 129. 3. possession of the land in question has already been taken over vide Rapat Roznamcha No. 235 dated 14.10.2004 and the pertaining to the petitioner has already been deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector on the date of Award i.e. 14.10.2004. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner also does not dispute that the ground of land in question bei 3.1 attention of this Court to paragraph 7 of the order dated 02.05.2023 (Annexure R-1) of the Apex Court, which extends liberty to the pet representation to the State Government in terms of Section 101 to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as applicable to the State of Haryana, and submits that the said libert 4. Court, since the Apex Court vide order dated 02.05.2023 had granted one month time to the petitioner to prefer a representation, which expir sometime in June, 2023, and therefore, the petitioner, if so advised, can seek extension of the said peri assistance can be provided to petitioner. 5. decision of the Apex Court in 2014 the matter afresh in accordance with law as laid down in the Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others, Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that possession of the land in question has already been taken over vide Rapat Roznamcha No. 235 dated 14.10.2004 and the pertaining to the petitioner has already been deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector on the date of Award i.e. 14.10.2004. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner also does not dispute that the ground of land in question being de-acquired is not available to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has drawn attention of this Court to paragraph 7 of the order dated 02.05.2023 (Annexure 1) of the Apex Court, which extends liberty to the pet representation to the State Government in terms of Section 101 to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as applicable to the State of Haryana, and submits e said liberty be extended to the petitioner This Court is afraid that no such liberty can be extended by this Court, since the Apex Court vide order dated 02.05.2023 had granted one month time to the petitioner to prefer a representation, which expir sometime in June, 2023, and therefore, the petitioner, if so advised, can seek extension of the said period prescribed by the Apex Court, failing which no assistance can be provided to petitioner. Since the requirements as laid down decision of the Apex Court in the case of -3- the matter afresh in accordance with law as laid down in the Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others, reported in (2020) 8 SCC Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that possession of the land in question has already been taken over vide Rapat Roznamcha No. 235 dated 14.10.2004 and the amount of compensation pertaining to the petitioner has already been deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector on the date of Award i.e. 14.10.2004. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner also does not dispute that the ground of land in acquired is not available to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has drawn attention of this Court to paragraph 7 of the order dated 02.05.2023 (Annexure 1) of the Apex Court, which extends liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the State Government in terms of Section 101-A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as applicable to the State of Haryana, and submits y be extended to the petitioner. This Court is afraid that no such liberty can be extended by this Court, since the Apex Court vide order dated 02.05.2023 had granted one month time to the petitioner to prefer a representation, which expir sometime in June, 2023, and therefore, the petitioner, if so advised, can seek od prescribed by the Apex Court, failing which no Since the requirements as laid down by the Five Judges Bench the case of Indore Development Authority Indore (2020) 8 SCC Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that possession of the land in question has already been taken over vide Rapat amount of compensation pertaining to the petitioner has already been deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector on the date of Award i.e. 14.10.2004. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner also does not dispute that the ground of land in Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has drawn attention of this Court to paragraph 7 of the order dated 02.05.2023 (Annexure itioner to make a A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as applicable to the State of Haryana, and submits This Court is afraid that no such liberty can be extended by this Court, since the Apex Court vide order dated 02.05.2023 had granted one month time to the petitioner to prefer a representation, which expired sometime in June, 2023, and therefore, the petitioner, if so advised, can seek od prescribed by the Apex Court, failing which no es Bench Indore Development Authority NAROTAM DASS 2025.05.08 11:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-4410-2014 (supra) are satisfied in favour of the State, the question of releasing the land in question from acquisition does not arise. 6. May 07, 2025 narotam Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2014 are satisfied in favour of the State, the question of releasing the land in question from acquisition does not arise. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -4- are satisfied in favour of the State, the question of releasing the land in Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. ( SHEEL NAGU ) CHIEF JUSTICE ( SUMEET GOEL ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No are satisfied in favour of the State, the question of releasing the land in NAROTAM DASS 2025.05.08 11:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment