Punjab-Haryana High Court
Beer Singh Yadav And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 6 March, 2024
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Lalit Batra
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031319-DB
CWP-2600-2022 (O&M)
-1-
2024:PHHC:031319-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-2600-2022 (O&M)
Reserved on: 26.02.2024
Date of Decision : March 06, 2024
BEER SINGH YADAV AND OTHERS
...Petitioners
V/S
THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA
Present : Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Navneet Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. AG Haryana with
Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.
***
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners pray for the
making of a mandamus, upon the respondents concerned, to release the
respective residential houses of the petitioners, as comprised in Khasra
No.365 (0B-8 Biswas), situated in the revenue estate of village Nathupur,
Tehsil and District Gurgaon (now Gurugram).
2. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1894"), became issued on
03.10.2006 (Annexure P-28), and, the said notification became succeeded by
a declaration made on 01.10.2007 (Annexure P-29), under Section 6 of the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031319-DB
CWP-2600-2022 (O&M)
2024:PHHC:031319-DB
Act (supra), and subsequently an award dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure P-32),
became passed under Section 11 of the Act of 1894.
3. The notifications (supra), became issued for the development of
residential, commercial and institutional area of Sectors 24 and 25 at
Gurgaon. It is evidently surfaces, on a reading of the reply on affidavit
furnished to the instant writ petition by the respondents concerned, that
through rapat possession No.93 of 30.09.2009, thus possession became
assumed over the disputed lands by the acquiring authority concerned.
Moreover, it has also been stated in the said reply, that the compensation
amount as became assessed at Rs.39,87,31,014/-, thus in respect of the
acquired lands, hence is lying deposited in the Reference Court vide cheque
No.461905 dated 16.05.2014 for being disbursed to the land-losers
concerned, therebys, the present petitioners cannot claim the making of a
lapsing declaration rather in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And
Resettlement Act, 2013.
4. At the outset, the instant writ petition is also hit by the bar of
delay and laches, as pointedly arousable from the factum, that despite the
acquisitions being launched in the year 2006, yet much belatedly therefrom
thus in the year 2022, the instant petition becoming instituted before this
Court. Therefore, since this Court in taking the view that the instant writ
petition is hit by the bar of delay and laches, thus, finds support from the
judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases titled as "Star Wire
(India) Ltd. V. State of Haryana" reported in (1996) 11 SCC 698,
"Municipal Council Ahmednagar V. Shah Hvder Beig" reported in (2002)
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031319-DB
CWP-2600-2022 (O&M)
2024:PHHC:031319-DB
2 SCC 48 and "C. Padma V. Dr. Secretary to the Government of Tamil
Nadu" reported in (1997) 2 SCC 627, therebys this Court is fortifyingly led
to make an inference that the instant petition is imbued with entrenched
vices of delay and laches, and, thereby it requires becoming dismissed.
5. Be that as it may, the petitioners are admittedly tenants over the
acquired lands, though therebys the petitioners became "persons interested"
to receive compensation, yet other than the land-owners, who could thus
claim the making of a declaration that the acquired lands be released from
acquisition, rather the petitioners, through theirs holding only tenancy rights
over the acquired lands, thus cannot claim any relief that the acquired
lands/estates be released from acquisition.
6. However, it appears that the present petitioners, though could
through, the aegis of Land Acquisition Collector concerned, file a petition
under Section 30 of the Act of 1894, before the learned Reference Court
concerned, for therebys theirs claiming their entitlement, to compensation
thus on anvil of theirs being "persons interested" in the compensation
amount as became determined in the award, as, became passed by the Land
Acquisition Collector. However, the above only permissible remedy
available to the present petitioners rather remains not recoursed by them,
whereas, it was the only remedy available to become adopted by the present
petitioners. The consequential effect thereof, is that, the petitioners are
deemed to thus, waive their entitlement to receive compensation, as became
determined.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031319-DB
CWP-2600-2022 (O&M)
2024:PHHC:031319-DB
7. In aftermath, this Court finds no merit in the instant petition,
and, is constrained to dismiss the same. Hence, the instant petition is
dismissed.
8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s), disposed
of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
06.03.2024 (LALIT BATRA)
Ithlesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031319-DB
4 of 4
