Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sardar Singh & Anr vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 18 April, 2024
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Lalit Batra
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051358-DB
CWP-21443-2016 -1-
2024:PHHC:051358-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP-21443-2016
Reserved on: 04.04.2024
Pronounced on: 18.04.2024
SARDAR SINGH AND ANOTHER
.....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA
Argued by: Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate and
Mr. Bikramjit S. Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. AG Haryana with
Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners pray for quashing
of notification (Annexure P-2) issued on 27.08.1987, under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1894"); and
notification (Annexure P-3) issued on 25.08.1988, under Section 6 of the Act of
1894.
2. The impugned notifications are sought to be lapsed by the
petitioners in view of the Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2013").
3. The Government of Haryana through the impugned notifications
acquired lands, for public purpose namely development & utilization of
institutional area in Sector 32, Gurugram.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051358-DB
2024:PHHC:051358-DB
4. Through an order made on 14.12.2016, in the instant writ petition,
this Court allowed the petition and the acquisition proceedings were declared to
have been lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. The said verdict was
challenged by the Government of Haryana before the Hon'ble Apex Court by
filing SLP (C) No.35445 of 2017, which was converted to Civil Appeal
No.2122 of 2023.
5. The learned counsel appearing for contesting litigants consensually
submit before this Court that the instant petition is covered by paragraph Nos. 3
and 7 of the verdict made, on 11.04.2023, by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the
Civil Appeal (supra), paragraphs whereof are extracted hereinafter.
"3. In all these appeals, the issue relates to the first
category, namely, where before the High Court, the original writ
petitioners challenged the acquisition/acquisition proceedings
under the Act, 1894, which, as such, were filed much prior to the
Act, 2013 came into force and submitted the amendment
applications for the relief of deemed lapse of acquisition under
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the grounds that neither the
possession was taken over nor the compensation was
paid/tendered. Without deciding the writ petitions on merits on
other grounds, more particularly the grounds on which the
acquisition/acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894 were
under challenge, solely relying upon the decision of this Court in
the case of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court
has allowed the writ petitions and has declared that the acquisition
with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed
under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
4, 5, 6. xxx
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
all the civil appeals as per para 3 of this judgment, arising out of
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051358-DB
2024:PHHC:051358-DB
the impugned common judgments and orders passed by the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.
4015/2006 and other allied writ petitions are allowed. The
impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court
declaring that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question
is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013
is/are hereby quashed and set aside. However, the matters are
remitted back to the High Court to decide and dispose of the main
writ petitions afresh in accordance with law and on their own
merits on other issues except the applicability of Section 24(2) of
the Act, 2013. We request the High Court to finally 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. All contentions and defences which are
available to the respective parties are kept open to be considered
by the High Court in accordance with law and on their own merits
(except the submission of applicability of Section 24(2) of the Act,
2013)."
6. Through an order of 11.04.2023, Hon'ble Supreme Court remitted
the matters back to the High Court to decide and dispose of the writ petitions
afresh in accordance with law and on their own merits on other issues except
the applicability of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. Therefore, this Court is in
terms of the directions contained in the said paragraphs required to decide and
dispose of the instant writ petition afresh in accordance with law, and, on its
own merits and issues. However, though the Hon'ble Apex Court in terms of
the above extracted paragraphs, has declared that the instant writ petition be
decided afresh excepting the applicability of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013,
to the instant writ petition.
7. Reason for not releasing the petitioners' lands/ constructions
though, the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the constructions
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051358-DB
2024:PHHC:051358-DB
being raised on the acquired lands prior to the issuance of a notification under
Section 4 of the Act of 1894, became founded upon the factum, that the said
constructions were an integral component of the layout plan, besides it is also
stated therein, that the development works on the acquired lands have been
completed.
8. Since the rejection of the petitioners' claim for release from
acquisition of their lands/constructions became founded on the said
constructions, being an integral component of the layout plan. Resultantly when
the preparation of the layout plan is done through employments of the experts in
the Engineering Cell concerned. Consequently, the expertise employed by the
Engineering Cell of the Acquiring Authority concerned, rather is not required to
be tinkered with. Since the inclusion of the constructions made over the
acquired lands by the present petitioners do thereby further and facilitate the
public purpose. Moreover, when the said public purpose is spoken in the reply
filed on behalf of the State to become completed through development works
being made thereons. Resultantly, at this belated stage, this Court does not
deem it fit, and, appropriate to release the lands/constructions of the petitioners.
9. Hence, this Court finds no merit in the instant writ petition, hence
the same is dismissed.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
(LALIT BATRA)
18.04.2024 JUDGE
Ithlesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
