CWP No.17312 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Hajari and others Versus State of Haryana and others CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. for the petitioners. Mr. LAPITA BANERJI, J. The prayer in the present writ petition is issuance of a writ in the nature of petitioners situate pursuant to polic P-18), 24.01.2011 (Annexure P 21.07.2022 (Annexure P P-22). 2. The facts of i) The petitioners were owners in possession of the land comprising in 16 Marlas in village Tigra, Tehsil and District Gurugram. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, as “the 1894 Act”) CWP No.17312 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.17312 OF 2025 (O&M) RESERVED ON: JULY 01, 2025 DATE OF DECISION: Hajari and others Versus State of Haryana and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Pardeep Chauhan, Senior DAG, LAPITA BANERJI, J. The prayer in the present writ petition is issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus petitioners situated in village Tigra, Tehsil and District Gurugram pursuant to policies of the State of Haryana 24.01.2011 (Annexure P-19), 14.09.2018 (Annexure P 21.07.2022 (Annexure P-21) and order dated The facts of the case in brief are narrated hereinafter: The petitioners were owners in possession of the land in Khewat No.22//23/1 and 22//23/2 admeasuring 07 Kanals 16 Marlas in village Tigra, Tehsil and District Gurugram. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Act”) seeking to acquire the aforesaid land of the petitioners IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CWP NO.17312 OF 2025 (O&M) RESERVED ON: JULY 01, 2025 DATE OF DECISION:JULY 17, 2025 ….Petitioners ….Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Pardeep Chauhan, Senior DAG, Haryana. The prayer in the present writ petition is primarily for mandamus to release the land of in village Tigra, Tehsil and District Gurugram, of the State of Haryana dated 26.10.2007 (Annexure 14.09.2018 (Annexure P-20), order dated 22.07.2022 (Annexure case in brief are narrated hereinafter: The petitioners were owners in possession of the land 22//23/2 admeasuring 07 Kanals 16 Marlas in village Tigra, Tehsil and District Gurugram. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to seeking to acquire the aforesaid land of the petitioners SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17312 of 2025 was issued on August 24, 2000 Act was issued on August 22, 2001 and an Award was passed on July 21, 2003. ii) The compensation awarded to the petitioners in the account of iii) To challenge the acquisition proceedings, only No.1-Hajari filed a writ petition bearing CWP No. same was disposed of by a Co dated July 25, 2013 (Annexure iv) By the said order dated July 25, 2013, recorded that the residential house of petitioner released from acquisiti concerned, it was the land was utilized for any public purpose. were directed to carry out a fresh survey at the site and in the event it was found that no public purpose could be served by land then the respondents releasing the left out said land could be utilized for the notified public purpose, directed to pass the date of receipt of v) Pursuant to the said order of the Co Director General, Urban site surveyed afresh and called for CWP No.17312 of 2025 issued on August 24, 2000. Notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued on August 22, 2001 and an Award was passed on July 21, The compensation awarded to the petitioners in the account of the Land Acquisition Collector. To challenge the acquisition proceedings, only filed a writ petition bearing CWP No. sposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated July 25, 2013 (Annexure P-7). By the said order dated July 25, 2013, recorded that the residential house of petitioner released from acquisition. As far as the adjoining it was observed that the writ Court could not ascertain whether was being used for domestic purpose utilized for any public purpose. Accordingly, t were directed to carry out a fresh survey at the site and in the event it was found that no public purpose could be served by land then the respondents were directed to consider releasing the left out land. However, in case the authorities said land could be utilized for the notified public purpose, directed to pass a speaking order to that effect within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Pursuant to the said order of the Co Director General, Urban Estate Department, Haryana, Panchkula got the site surveyed afresh by a Committee headed by the Administrator and called for a report. Page 2 of 10 otification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued on August 22, 2001 and an Award was passed on July 21, The compensation awarded to the petitioners was deposited Land Acquisition Collector. To challenge the acquisition proceedings, only petitioner filed a writ petition bearing CWP No.11572 of 2008 and the ordinate Bench of this Court vide order By the said order dated July 25, 2013, the Co-ordinate Bench recorded that the residential house of petitioner No.1 already stood As far as the adjoining piece of land was writ Court could not ascertain whether being used for domestic purpose or that it could not be Accordingly, the competent authorities were directed to carry out a fresh survey at the site and in the event it was found that no public purpose could be served by acquiring the left over were directed to consider the desirability of the authorities found that the said land could be utilized for the notified public purpose, they were a speaking order to that effect within four months from certified copy of the order. Pursuant to the said order of the Co-ordinate Bench, the Estate Department, Haryana, Panchkula got the by a Committee headed by the Administrator HUDA SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17312 of 2025 vi) The Committee recommended Marlas of land out of the entire land admeasuring 07 Kanals 16 Marlas found encroached by petitioner No.1 layout plan of Sector made by the Committee. the report, passed a speaking order directing colour on the enclosed plan to be petitioners would vacate and hand over the possession of th vacant land. The over the possession of the remaining land, including the land in Khasra No.22//23/2 (0 final release order the above condition vii) A filed by the present petitioners before prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus dir release their house Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “ viii) A filed a detailed and comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority within a period of two months from the date of same would be decided in accordance with law order and by months from the date of receipt CWP No.17312 of 2025 The Committee recommended Marlas of land out of the entire land admeasuring 07 Kanals 16 Marlas found encroached by petitioner No.1 as marked in yellow colour on the plan of Sector-57. The government approved the recommendations made by the Committee. The Director General taking into consideration passed a speaking order directing colour on the enclosed plan to be released subject to petitioners would vacate and hand over the possession of th vacant land. Therefore, the petitioner No.1- possession of the remaining land, including the land in Khasra 22//23/2 (0-4) to HUDA as a condition precedent final release order was directed to be passed only after the the above condition. A second writ petition being CWP No.6841 of 2014 was filed by the present petitioners before this prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus dir release their house/land in view of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “ A Co-ordinate Bench observed that in case the petitioners a detailed and comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority within a period of two months from the date of same would be decided in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of hearing within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the representation. Till such time the The Committee recommended release of 02 Kanals 10 Marlas of land out of the entire land admeasuring 07 Kanals 16 Marlas marked in yellow colour on the 57. The government approved the recommendations The Director General taking into consideration passed a speaking order directing the land marked in yellow subject to the condition that the petitioners would vacate and hand over the possession of the remaining Hajari was required to hand possession of the remaining land, including the land in Khasra as a condition precedent to the release. The was directed to be passed only after the compliance of second writ petition being CWP No.6841 of 2014 was then this High Court in which they prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to in view of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”). ordinate Bench observed that in case the petitioners a detailed and comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority within a period of two months from the date of the order, the same would be decided in accordance with law, by passing a speaking an opportunity of hearing within a period of four representation. Till such time the SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17312 of 2025 matter was decided by the authority, maintained by the parties. ix) The authority concerned request made by the petitioners under Section 24 of possession of land which could be evidenced from Rapat Roznamcha No. date and the said roznamcha issued by an independent authority i.e Land Acquisition Collector of physical possession. upon with the Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. The petitioners could not documentary evidence to show that they were in continuous possession the land in dispute High Court, the encroachers/ petitioners could not be removed. x) The petitioners by filing CWP No. 8004 of 2017 “ and others”. The said petition was dis in terms of the judgment dated January 29, 2018 in 2015 “Vijay Pal and others v. State of Haryana and others xi) The writ petition being CWP No.8004 of 2017 was allowed vide judgment dated January 29, petitioners agreed to receive the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector nor was the compensation amount with the Reference Court Therefore, the acquisition proceedings were set CWP No.17312 of 2025 r was decided by the authority, status maintained by the parties. The authority concerned opined that request made by the petitioners under Section 24 of of land had already been taken by HUDA on July 21, 2003 which could be evidenced from Rapat Roznamcha No. and the said roznamcha issued by an independent authority i.e Land Acquisition Collector was a substantive piece of evidence to prove change of physical possession. Subsequently, the land in dispute was the mala fide intention by the petitioners to take the benefit of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. The petitioners could not documentary evidence to show that they were in continuous possession the land in dispute. It was only due to the status High Court, the encroachers/ petitioners could not be removed. The petitioners again approached this CWP No. 8004 of 2017 “Hazari and others v. State of Haryana ”. The said petition was disposed of by the Co in terms of the judgment dated January 29, 2018 in Vijay Pal and others v. State of Haryana and others The writ petition being CWP No.8004 of 2017 was allowed vide judgment dated January 29, 2018 on the ground that neither the petitioners agreed to receive the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector nor was the compensation amount with the Reference Court in accordance with Section 31 of the 1894 Act. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings were set tatus-quo was directed to be opined that there was no merit in the request made by the petitioners under Section 24 of the 2013 Act. The taken by HUDA on July 21, 2003 which could be evidenced from Rapat Roznamcha No.583 of the same and the said roznamcha issued by an independent authority i.e Land was a substantive piece of evidence to prove change , the land in dispute was encroached intention by the petitioners to take the benefit of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. The petitioners could not provide any documentary evidence to show that they were in continuous possession of status-quo order passed by the High Court, the encroachers/ petitioners could not be removed. approached this Hon’ble High Court Hazari and others v. State of Haryana posed of by the Co-ordinate Bench in terms of the judgment dated January 29, 2018 in CWP No.13425 of Vijay Pal and others v. State of Haryana and others”. The writ petition being CWP No.8004 of 2017 was allowed on the ground that neither the petitioners agreed to receive the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector nor was the compensation amount deposited in accordance with Section 31 of the 1894 Act. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings were set-aside. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17312 of 2025 xii) The physical the petitioners had raised structures was also held to Therefore, it was decided that the impugned acquisition of land/properties had lapsed under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. However, it was clarified that land for a public purpose, it could re Furthermore, had received compensation in respect of land, the said compensation required to be refunded along with interest at the statutory rate within a period of three months. xiii) The State of Haryana preferred an a judgment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C ) No.19000 of 2019 aside the impugned order considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in “Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal and others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 and Infrastructure Honeywell International (India) Private Limited of 2023 dated 11.04.2023 xiv) The impugned judgment was remitted back to the covering the field in petition being CWP No.8004 of 2017 was decided by a Co Bench on February 14, 202 petition along with costs assessed at Rs.25,000/ reproduced herein under : CWP No.17312 of 2025 The physical possession of the acquired land where most of the petitioners had raised structures was also held to Therefore, it was decided that the impugned acquisition of land/properties had lapsed under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. However, it was clarified that in the event the State a public purpose, it could re-acquire the same under the 2013 Act. Furthermore, it was directed in case where petitioners or their co had received compensation in respect of land, the said compensation to be refunded along with interest at the statutory rate within a period of three months. The State of Haryana preferred an a judgment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C ) No.19000 of 2019 aside the impugned order considering the law laid down by the Supreme Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal and others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 followed in and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited and others v. M/s Honeywell International (India) Private Limited of 2023 dated 11.04.2023. The impugned judgment was set remitted back to the High Court to be decided on issues other than the one covering the field in Indore Development’s petition being CWP No.8004 of 2017 was decided by a Co Bench on February 14, 2025. The Hon’ble Bench dismissed the writ petition along with costs assessed at Rs.25,000/ reproduced herein under : possession of the acquired land where most of the petitioners had raised structures was also held to be retained by them. Therefore, it was decided that the impugned acquisition of the land/properties had lapsed under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. the State required the released acquire the same under the 2013 Act. se where petitioners or their co-sharers had received compensation in respect of land, the said compensation was to be refunded along with interest at the statutory rate within a The State of Haryana preferred an appeal from the said judgment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C ) No.19000 of 2019 set- aside the impugned order considering the law laid down by the Supreme Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal and others” ollowed in “Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and others v. M/s Honeywell International (India) Private Limited” Civil Appeal No.2052 set-aside and the matter was igh Court to be decided on issues other than the one case (supra). The third writ petition being CWP No.8004 of 2017 was decided by a Co-ordinate 5. The Hon’ble Bench dismissed the writ petition along with costs assessed at Rs.25,000/- due to the reasons SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17312 of 2025 “xxx 11. bearing Haryana and others, wherein, the present petitioners unsuccessfully claimed relief for quashing of the notifications as became respectively issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894. The said petition wa direction to the respondents to carry out fresh survey at the relevant site. In compliance thereto, the Director General Urban Estates Department has passed the order dated 21.02.2014 (Annexure P released shall vacate the remaining land including land comprised in Khasra No.22/23/2 (0 challenged by the petitioners. Resultantly, the said order acquires binding and con petitioners become stopped from challenging the order supra. 12. embarked into by the present petitioners was in the year 2014, through their instituting Civil Writ Petition bearing No.6841 of 2014. Since prior to the filing of the said writ petition, thus, the Act of 2013 came into force, whereupon the present petitioners claimed the rendition of a lapsing declaration in their favour. The said claim was banked upon the provisions em However, the said writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file detailed representation before the respondent authorities through an order made by this Court on 22.04.2015 (Annexure P representation before Zonal Committee, Gurugram and the said representation 13.12.2016. The petitioners have filed instant petition before said order supra dated 13.12.2016 for release of land as Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 and have further prayed for the q2uashing of order dated 13.12.2016. 13. petitioners had also raised a claim for enhancement of compensation as became determined under through their in Land Acquisition Collector concerned, thus, a reference petition the award made on the said reference petition did also result in further motion there against being raised and which travelled on one hand, the petitioners were claiming the application vis the Act of 2013and on the other hand, they were claiming enhancement CWP No.17312 of 2025 “xxx 11. The first round of litigation is embodied in writ petition bearing No.11572 of 2008 titled as Hazari v. State of Haryana and others, wherein, the present petitioners unsuccessfully claimed relief for quashing of the notifications as became respectively issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894. The said petition wa direction to the respondents to carry out fresh survey at the relevant site. In compliance thereto, the Director General Urban Estates Department has passed the order dated 21.02.2014 (Annexure P-6) whereby 1273 sq. mtr. was released, but with the condition shall vacate the remaining land including land comprised in Khasra No.22/23/2 (0-4). The said order supra has not been challenged by the petitioners. Resultantly, the said order acquires binding and conclusive effect, whereby, the petitioners become stopped from challenging the order supra. 12. The second round of litigation which became embarked into by the present petitioners was in the year 2014, through their instituting Civil Writ Petition bearing No.6841 of 2014. Since prior to the filing of the said writ petition, thus, the Act of 2013 came into force, whereupon the present petitioners claimed the rendition of a lapsing declaration in their favour. The said claim was banked upon the provisions embodied in Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013. However, the said writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file detailed representation before the respondent authorities through an order made by this Court on 22.04.2015 (Annexure P-10) representation before Zonal Committee, Gurugram and the said representation was rejected, vide order dated 13.12.2016. The petitioners have filed instant petition before said order supra dated 13.12.2016 for release of land as Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 and have further prayed for the q2uashing of order dated 13.12.2016. 13. Conspicuously, it is also visibly clear that the petitioners had also raised a claim for enhancement of compensation as became determined under through their instituting through the aegis of the learned Land Acquisition Collector concerned, thus, a reference petition cast under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. Moreover, the award made on the said reference petition did also result n further motion there against being raised and which travelled upto the Apex Court. The impact of the above is that on one hand, the petitioners were claiming the application vis-à-vis them of the provisions embodied the Act of 2013and on the other hand, they were claiming enhancement of compensation in amount higher than the The first round of litigation is embodied in writ petition No.11572 of 2008 titled as Hazari v. State of Haryana and others, wherein, the present petitioners unsuccessfully claimed relief for quashing of the notifications as became respectively issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894. The said petition was disposed of with the direction to the respondents to carry out fresh survey at the relevant site. In compliance thereto, the Director General Urban Estates Department has passed the order dated 6) whereby 1273 sq. mtr. was , but with the condition that the present petitioners shall vacate the remaining land including land comprised in . The said order supra has not been challenged by the petitioners. Resultantly, the said order clusive effect, whereby, the petitioners become stopped from challenging the order The second round of litigation which became embarked into by the present petitioners was in the year 2014, through their instituting Civil Writ Petition bearing No.6841 of 2014. Since prior to the filing of the said writ petition, thus, the Act of 2013 came into force, whereupon the present petitioners claimed the rendition of a lapsing declaration in their favour. The said claim was banked upon bodied in Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013. However, the said writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file detailed representation before the respondent authorities through an order made by this Court 10). The petitioners have filed representation before Zonal Committee, Gurugram and the was rejected, vide order dated 13.12.2016. The petitioners have filed instant petition before said order supra dated 13.12.2016 for release of land as per Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 and have further prayed for the q2uashing of order dated 13.12.2016. Conspicuously, it is also visibly clear that the petitioners had also raised a claim for enhancement of compensation as became determined under the Act of 1894, stituting through the aegis of the learned Land Acquisition Collector concerned, thus, a reference cast under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. Moreover, the award made on the said reference petition did also result n further motion there against being raised and which upto the Apex Court. The impact of the above is that on one hand, the petitioners were claiming the application vis them of the provisions embodied in Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013and on the other hand, they were claiming of compensation in amount higher than the SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17312 of 2025 ones as became awarded in their favour in terms of the award which became rendered under the Act of 1894. The galvanizations parallel remedies, is but magnifacatory of the fact, that they did not have a realistic intention, as such to claim any favourable application vis enclosed in Section 24 (2) of the Act supra they were working only at the behest of the realtor/developer concerned. 14. the compensation as became determined in the proceedings launched under the Act of 1894 and whic travelled upto the Apex Court, did not become received by the present petitioners, but the very fact that they had invoked such a remedy, thus for enhancement of compensation, through theirs availing the remedies under Section 18 of the Act of award passed under the Act of 1894 thereby they become completely stopped to subsequently invoke the remedy as enshrined in Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013. Naturally thereby, this Court is fully co present petitioners being genuinely aggrieved, they are being prodded by the realtor concerned, thus to continue to ill agitate Act of 2013. Furthermore, it also appears tha realtor/developer concerned is, prima maintaining the instant ill repeatedly before this court. 15. dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/ forthwith deposited by the petitioners with the Treasurer of the Bar Association of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. 16. xv) The aforesaid order dated February 14, 2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated April 21, 2025 wherein the Apex Court refused to interfere with the impugned order dated February 14, 2025 and had only set Rs.25,000/-. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that considering the CWP No.17312 of 2025 ones as became awarded in their favour in terms of the award which became rendered under the Act of 1894. The galvanizations at the instance of the present petitioner of parallel remedies, is but magnifacatory of the fact, that they did not have a realistic intention, as such to claim any favourable application vis-à-vis them of the mandate enclosed in Section 24 (2) of the Act supra they were working only at the behest of the realtor/developer concerned. 14. Even otherwise, assuming that even if the amount of the compensation as became determined in the proceedings launched under the Act of 1894 and whic travelled upto the Apex Court, did not become received by the present petitioners, but the very fact that they had invoked such a remedy, thus for enhancement of compensation, through theirs availing the remedies under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, is plainly suggestive that they had accepted the award passed under the Act of 1894 thereby they become completely stopped to subsequently invoke the remedy as enshrined in Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013. Naturally thereby, this Court is fully convinced that rather than the present petitioners being genuinely aggrieved, they are being prodded by the realtor concerned, thus to continue to ill agitate a claim which is ill-cast under Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013. Furthermore, it also appears tha realtor/developer concerned is, prima maintaining the instant ill-laid motions and that too repeatedly before this court. 15. Finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/ forthwith deposited by the petitioners with the Treasurer of the Bar Association of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. 16. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.” The aforesaid order dated February 14, 2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated April 21, 2025 the Apex Court refused to interfere with the impugned order dated February 14, 2025 and had only set- Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that considering the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act ones as became awarded in their favour in terms of the award which became rendered under the Act of 1894. The at the instance of the present petitioner of parallel remedies, is but magnifacatory of the fact, that they did not have a realistic intention, as such to claim any vis them of the mandate enclosed in Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 but as stated supra they were working only at the behest of the Even otherwise, assuming that even if the amount of the compensation as became determined in the proceedings launched under the Act of 1894 and which ultimately travelled upto the Apex Court, did not become received by the present petitioners, but the very fact that they had invoked such a remedy, thus for enhancement of compensation, through theirs availing the remedies under Section 18 of the 1894, is plainly suggestive that they had accepted the award passed under the Act of 1894 thereby they become completely stopped to subsequently invoke the remedy as enshrined in Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013. Naturally nvinced that rather than the present petitioners being genuinely aggrieved, they are being prodded by the realtor concerned, thus to continue to ill- cast under Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013. Furthermore, it also appears that the realtor/developer concerned is, prima-facie, indulging in laid motions and that too Finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-. The said imposed cost be forthwith deposited by the petitioners with the Treasurer of the Bar Association of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.” The aforesaid order dated February 14, 2025 was assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated April 21, 2025 the Apex Court refused to interfere with the impugned order -aside the costs assessed at Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners provisions of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17312 of 2025 the land of the petitioners 24, 2000 and August 22, 2001 under Sections 4 and 6 o should be released from acquisition. 4. Section 24 (2) of the 2013 5. The judgment of the Co 2018 that allowed the writ petition under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act has already been in Indore Development’s 6. It case (supra) that no acquisition proceedings will lapse as long as one of the limbs of Section 24 of the 2013 Act has been satisfied. State had deposited the compensation with one of the competent authorities it would be deemed as payment of compensation to the land owners. Furthermore, possession of the property evidenced from rapat roznamcha. CWP No.17312 of 2025 the land of the petitioners acquired under the notifications dated August 24, 2000 and August 22, 2001 under Sections 4 and 6 o should be released from acquisition. Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act is reproduced herein below “Section 24- Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act: Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposit in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquiescence under Section 4 of the said Land entitled to compensation in accordance with the provision of this Act.” The judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench dated January 29, 2018 that allowed the writ petition under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act has already been set-aside by the Supreme Court in view of law laid down Indore Development’s case (supra). It has been unambiguously held in that no acquisition proceedings will lapse as long as one of of Section 24 of the 2013 Act has been satisfied. State had deposited the compensation with one of the competent authorities it would be deemed as payment of compensation to the land Furthermore, possession of the property evidenced from rapat roznamcha. acquired under the notifications dated August 24, 2000 and August 22, 2001 under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act, Act is reproduced herein below: Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases- Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this d that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposit in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquiescence under Section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provision ordinate Bench dated January 29, 2018 that allowed the writ petition under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act side by the Supreme Court in view of law laid down held in Indore Development’s that no acquisition proceedings will lapse as long as one of of Section 24 of the 2013 Act has been satisfied. As long as the State had deposited the compensation with one of the competent authorities it would be deemed as payment of compensation to the land Furthermore, possession of the property could sufficiently be SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17312 of 2025 7. In view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on February 27, 2024 the Co third writ petition being CWP No. said writ petition was dismissed with costs by the Co February 14, 2025. The said Supreme Court summarily rejected the appeal vide order dated April 21, 2025 and only the costs component was interfered with. 8. Petitioner No.1 dated February 21, 2014 passed by the Director General, Urban Estate Department, refused to vacate and hand over the the land which was not released by the authorities including the land in Khasra No.22//23/2 (0 said order of the Director General. Instead a fresh writ petition was filed being CWP No.6841 to circumvent the order passed by the Director General, HUDA. from petitioner No.1, no other petitioner dated August 24, 2000 and August 22, 2001 of the 1894 Act prayed for release of their land 11 years after passing of the consideration of the objections filed under Section 5 9. The petitioners compensation which was unambiguous evidence of the fact that the by them. Thus, the petitioners are clearly barred by the exposition of law in the judgment proceedings under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. CWP No.17312 of 2025 In view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on February 27, 2024 the Co-ordinate Bench of this writ petition being CWP No.8804 of 2017 it petition was dismissed with costs by the Co February 14, 2025. The said judgment was carried in appeal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court summarily rejected the appeal vide order dated April 21, nly the costs component was interfered with. Petitioner No.1 along with the other petitioners dated February 21, 2014 passed by the Director General, Urban Estate Department, refused to vacate and hand over the land which was not released by the authorities including the land in Khasra No.22//23/2 (0-4). No appeal was filed by the petitioners from the said order of the Director General. Instead a fresh writ petition was filed being CWP No.6841 of 2014, in clear abuse of the process of law in order to circumvent the order passed by the Director General, HUDA. from petitioner No.1, no other petitioner even August 24, 2000 and August 22, 2001 issued under Sections 4 and 6 the 1894 Act or the Award dated July 21, 2003. prayed for release of their land 11 years after passing of the consideration of the objections filed under Section 5 The petitioners had also prayed compensation granted by the award under Section 18 of the 1894 Act which was unambiguous evidence of the fact that the m. Thus, the petitioners are clearly barred by the exposition of law judgment of Indore Development’s proceedings under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. In view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court ordinate Bench of this High Court heard the 8804 of 2017, on merits afresh. The it petition was dismissed with costs by the Co-ordinate Bench on was carried in appeal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court summarily rejected the appeal vide order dated April 21, nly the costs component was interfered with. along with the other petitioners despite order dated February 21, 2014 passed by the Director General, Urban Estate Department, refused to vacate and hand over the peaceful possession of land which was not released by the authorities including the land in No appeal was filed by the petitioners from the said order of the Director General. Instead a fresh writ petition was filed abuse of the process of law in order to circumvent the order passed by the Director General, HUDA. Apart even challenged the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 the Award dated July 21, 2003. For the first time they prayed for release of their land 11 years after passing of the award, upon consideration of the objections filed under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act. also prayed for enhancement of under Section 18 of the 1894 Act which was unambiguous evidence of the fact that the Award was accepted m. Thus, the petitioners are clearly barred by the exposition of law Indore Development’s case (supra) to maintain proceedings under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17312 of 2025 10. In the light of the aforesaid discussion having not challenged the order of the Director General dated February 21, 2014 now Kanals 16 Marlas order dated February 21, 2014 clearly indicate act with bona fide their illegal possession by Law. Once the authorities have opined that the land is required for future development work the said decision review unless wholly un No case has been argument nor is there any pleading to s petitioners have been present writ petition. 11. The present writ petition is also barred by the principles of constructive dismissed with costs 12. Connected of. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE JULY 17, 2025 shalini Whether Speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: CWP No.17312 of 2025 In the light of the aforesaid discussion having not challenged the order of the Director General dated February now cannot seek for release of the entire land admeasuring 07 Kanals 16 Marlas, under the aforesaid policies order dated February 21, 2014 clearly indicate bona fide intent and have time and again sought to their illegal possession by blatantly showing Once the authorities have opined that the land is required for future development work the said decision cannot be subject matter of judicial review unless wholly unreasonable, arbitrary or hit by No case has been made out by the petitioners on the aforesaid line of argument nor is there any pleading to show which legal right of the petitioners have been violated. Therefore, this Court finds no merit present writ petition. The present writ petition is also barred by the principles of constructive res judicata. Accordingly, CWP No.1 with costs assessed at Rs.25,000/-, being devoid of any merit. Connected applications, if any, are also accordingly disposed (DEEPAK SIBAL) (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE JULY 17, 2025 Whether Speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No In the light of the aforesaid discussion and the petitioners having not challenged the order of the Director General dated February eek for release of the entire land admeasuring 07 , under the aforesaid policies. Non-compliance of the order dated February 21, 2014 clearly indicates that the petitioners did not intent and have time and again sought to perpetuate blatantly showing scant regard to the Rule of Once the authorities have opined that the land is required for future cannot be subject matter of judicial reasonable, arbitrary or hit by mala fide intent. made out by the petitioners on the aforesaid line of ow which legal right of the violated. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the The present writ petition is also barred by the principles of ccordingly, CWP No.17312 of 2025, is , being devoid of any merit. applications, if any, are also accordingly disposed (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document