RAMNARAYAN DECEASED THRU LRS AND ORS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
CWP/15856/2026 · 2026-07-07
Subhas Mehla, Vikas Bahl
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 27012 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 27012 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
CWP No.15856 of 2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 118 CWP No.15856 of 2026 Date of decision: July 7th, 2026 Ramnarayan since deceased through LRs and another .....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Saurabh Mago, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of order dated 18.01.2018 and for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring that land acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
2.
Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that in the present case, it is the admitted case of the petitioners that the possession has been taken by the department in the year 1971 and rapat roznamcha No.147 dated 30.11.1971 has been entered into in the said regard and has further submitted that in view of the law laid down by the PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.08 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No.15856 of 2026 2 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Versus Manoharlal and others reported as 2020 (8) SCC 129, the acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which were initiated in the year 1971 cannot be said to have lapsed.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly submitted that he be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to institute appropriate proceedings on the aspect of compensation.
4. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE July 7th, 2026
(SUBHAS MEHLA) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.08 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh