Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunita vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 29 April, 2024
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Lalit Batra
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058479-DB
CWP-23298-2018 (O & M) -1- 2024:PHHC:058479-DB
151 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP-23298-2018 (O & M)
Reserved on: 18.04.2024
Pronounced on: 29.04.2024
SUNITA .....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA
Argued by: Mr. Govind Rana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana with
Mr. P.P.Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana and
Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. Through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the
quashing of notification(s) bearing No. 2/6/1-1-IB-II-2001 dated
05.10.2005 (Annexure P-2), and, also seeks the quashing of notification
bearing No. 2/6/1-1-IB-II-2001 dated 06.10.2006 (Annexure P-3). The
said notification(s) were respectively issued under Sections 4 and 6 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act of 1894'). The
consequent thereto award has also been asked to be quashed, and, set
aside.
2. The above espoused writ claims become founded upon the
provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (for short 'the Act of 2013'), whereunders the petitioner becomes
empowered to claim the making of a lapsing declaration.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058479-DB
CWP-23298-2018 (O & M) -2- 2024:PHHC:058479-DB
3. Earlier the said writ petition became dismissed by this
Court vide order dated 04.11.2020. The aggrieved therefrom assailed
the said order by way of filing Civil Appeal No. 8831 of 2021 before
the Hon'ble Apex Court. Through an order made on the civil appeal
(supra), on 23.07.2021, Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the impugned
judgment, as passed by this Court and relegated the parties before the
High Court by restoring the writ petition, for reconsideration
expeditiously, in accordance with law.
4. The present petitioner would be entitled to the espoused
writ relief(s), as relates to this Court, thus declaring rather lapsed the
extantly drawn acquisition proceedings, but only when the provisions
embodied in Section 24(2) of the 'Act of 2013', become proved to
become breached by the respondents. However, for the reasons to be
assigned hereinafter, the asked for relief qua the making of a lapsing
declaration rather cannot be accorded by this Court.
5. Primarily for the reason, that the present petitioner would
be entitled to coax this Court to declare the launching of the acquisition
proceedings under the Act of 1894, to thus become lapsed, but only
when the respondent-State, rather had completely failed to, in terms of
the verdict rendered by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Indore Development Authority versus Manohar Lal and
others, reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, adduce sufficient/clinching
discharging evidence, in respect of the duo parameters, inasmuch as, (i)
qua rapat possession being made over the acquired lands, (ii) and, qua
the compensation, as became determined by the Collector concerned,
becoming deposited for therebys its becoming available for being
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058479-DB
CWP-23298-2018 (O & M) -3- 2024:PHHC:058479-DB
released to the land losers concerned, besides the said events evidently
happening before the coming into force of the 'Act of 2013'.
6. To determine the above, it is necessary to refer to the reply
on affidavit, already on record. A reading of the paragraph no. 8 of the
said reply on affidavit, reveals, that possession over the acquired lands
became assumed through rapat No. 98 dated 17.10.2008.
7. Moreover, when it is further indicated in the reply, on
affidavit, furnished to the writ petition, by the respondent concerned,
that despite the total amount of assessed compensation, under award
dated 17.10.2008 becoming tendered, yet the petitioner not seeking
disbursement(s) thereof, leading the same to be deposited by the LAC,
Sonipat, in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sonipat vide
letter No. 5880 dated 06.04.2015, for therebys it becoming available for
becoming released to the land losers concerned.
8. In consequence, since both the above events took place
prior to the coming into force of the 'Act of 2013', resultantly, in terms
of the verdict recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indore
Development Authority's case (supra), the present petitioner is not
entitled to make any espousal before this Court, that a lapsing
declaration be made in terms of Section 24(2) of the 'Act of 2013'. In
sequel, the above made writ claim is declined.
9. Further, a reading of para No. 5 of the reply, on affidavit, it
is revealed that the petitioner did not prefer any objections in terms of
Section 5-A of the 'Act of 1894', before the Collector concerned. In the
face of abandonment of the said opportunity by the petitioner, to thus
prefer objections under Section 5-A of the 'Act of 1894', before the
Collector concerned, thereby her said abandonment, thus tantamounts
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058479-DB
CWP-23298-2018 (O & M) -4- 2024:PHHC:058479-DB
to waiver of the said granted opportunity, besides fosters a further
conclusion, that the petitioner become estopped to claim before this
Court, that either she became forestalled to raise objections or the said
objections were summarily rejected.
10. Moreover, the plea of the petitioner qua her still lawfully
retaining possession over the subject lands, is a mis-founded plea, as,
the occupation of the petitioner, over the subject lands rather is as
trespassers thereovers and the petitioner is required to be lawfully
evicted therefroms.
11. Conspicuously also since it has been stated, in the reply on
affidavit, already on record, that the subject lands are an integral
component of the layout plans, thereby when they are facilitating the
relevant public purposes. Consequently, when public purpose than the
individualistic interest is rather to be furthered. Resultantly, this Court
finds no merit in the instant petition, and, is constrained to dismiss it.
Final Order of this Court.
12. In aftermath, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition,
and, with the above observations, the same is dismissed. The impugned
notification(s), and consequent thereto award are maintained and
affirmed.
13. No order as to costs. Since the main case itself has been
decided, thus, all the pending application(s), if any, also stand(s)
disposed of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
(LALIT BATRA)
29.04.2024 JUDGE
kavneet singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
