Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaiveer vs State Of Haryana And Others on 4 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.109
CWP-19708-2021
Date of Decision: 04.10.2021
JAIVEER
... Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI
Present: Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
(Through video conference)
*****
RITU BAHRI, J.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance
of a writ in the nature of mandamus seeking directions to the
respondents to consider and release/recover the unused and unutilized
area of the land of the petitioner, which had been acquired for public,
semi public and residential Sector 21, Rohtak. Further, prayer has
been made to direct the respondents to consider and decide the
representation dated 15.12.2019 (Annexure P-7).
Notice of motion.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General,
Haryana, assisted by Mr. Saurabh Mago, Assistant Advocate General,
1 of 3
Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and refers to a
judgment dated 11.11.2010 passed by Division Bench of this Court in
the CWP-11020-2010 titled as "Satya Narain Bhalothia and others
Vs. State of Haryana and others", where the land in question was
acquired by notification dated 24.12.2007 under Sections 4 and 6 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), for
public, semi public and residential Sector 21, Rohtak. Learned State
Counsel submits that while dismissing the said writ petition, it was
observed that the petitioners in that case have not filed their
objections under Section 5-A of the Act and the same was dismissed
as sufficient relief had already been granted to the petitioners.
Learned State Counsel further states that an SLP filed against this
judgment was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on
18.03.2011. Learned State Counsel informs that even in the present
case, the petitioner has not chosen to file objections under Section 5-
A of the Act.
In any case, the petitioner has approached this Court for
challenging the above-said notification, after a gap of more than 10
years of passing of the award as well as CWP-11020-2010, Satya
Narain Bhalothia's case (supra).
After arguing for some time, at this stage, learned
counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw
the instant petition with liberty to make a representation, claiming
release of land under Section 101-A of Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013.
2 of 3
In view of the submission made by learned counsel for
the petitioner, the instant writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with
the liberty as prayed for.
(RITU BAHRI)
JUDGE
(ARCHANA PURI)
JUDGE
04.10.2021
Himanshu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
