Punjab-Haryana High Court
Desh Raj Dhingra vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 24 October, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140264-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
208 CWP-16905-2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision.:24.10.2024
Desh Raj Dhingra Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and another Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. AG, Haryana with
Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.
****
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Present Writ Petition has been remanded to this Court after earlier
decision dated 30.10.2017, on account of the fact that compensation for the
acquired land has not been paid and the possession had not been taken keeping in
view the prevalent position of law at that point of time. The Apex Court in Civil
Appeal No. 2619 of 2024, has set aside the said judgment for fresh consideration
in view of the judgment "Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and
Others" (2020) 8 SCC 129 with the observation that all legal contentions are
kept open to be raised by both parties.
2. The present petition was filed in the year 2014, is based only on the
ground of lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 24 (2) of the Right
to Fair Compenstaion and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140264-DB
CWP-16905-2014 (O&M)
Resettlement Act, 2013 [for short 'the 2013 Act'], regarding the land measuring
13 Kanal 6 Marla in Village Nangal Khurd, Tehsil and District Sonipat, which
was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short 'the
1894 Act'] on 20th January, 2003 followed by the notification dated 16.01.2004
under Section 6 of the the 1894 Act. Apparently award was also passed on 14th
January, 2006.
3. The land having vested in the State as such, had never been objected
to and only on the ground the 2013 Act had come into force, the writ petition
came up for hearing for the first time on 21st August, 2014 and was kept pending
as the matter was under consideration before the Apex Court. The reply has now
been filed wherein it is mentioned that petitioners had not filed objections under
Section 5A of the 1894 Act and the conditions as such have been honored
inasmuch the amount was duly tendered before the LAC by the State and out of
₹42,45,43,182/- deposited, ₹9,26,95,044/- has already been disbursed. The
balance of ₹33,18,48,138/- is lying deposited in the account of the LAC and the
petitioners are at liberty to receive his share.
4. The recording of Rapat Roznamcha No.356 dated 14.01.2006 on
passing of award has also been mentioned which affirms the fact of taking of
possession and the fact that land was acquired for public purpose, for
development of Sector 8-19, Sonepat, residential and commercial by the erstwhile
Haryana Urban Development Authority. The essentially and the liability of the
acquisition has also been mentioned by the State. The land of the petitioners site
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140264-DB
CWP-16905-2014 (O&M) -3-
effect's 24 mtr. vide road, 12 mtr. road, 32 plots of 4 Marla, 9 plots of 6 Marla,
12 plots of 3 Marla and green area as per the revised layout plan of Sector-19,
Residential Sonepat. We have examined the site plan (Annexure R-2) which has
verified the said averments and that the laid out planned development will be
adversely affected in case any benefit is to be granted to the landowners, who is
in any ways had never objected to the acquisition proceedings and never
challenged the same on merits. The award having been passed now he has no
vested right to challenge the same after a delay of 8 years.
5. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, same is hereby
dismissed.
All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
JUDGE
October 24, 2024
Neetika Tuteja
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
