Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohan Lal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 23 September, 2024
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia, Meenakshi I. Mehta
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126099-DB
123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.24366 of 2024
Date of Decision: 23.09.2024
Mohan Lal
.....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
*****
Present:- Mr. Ankur Kaushik, Advocate
for the petitioner.
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.(Oral)
The claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition filed
under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for release of the land
owned by him under Section 101 and 101-A of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the 2013 Act') and to decide the
representation dated 30.11.2023 (Annexure P-7).
2. Apparently, the land of the petitioner falling in Khewat/
Khatoni No.110/151, Rect. No.7, Killa No.5 (0-12), 6 (3-16), total
measuring 04 Kanals 08 Marlas situated within the revenue estates of
Village Palla, Tehsil and District Faridabad (for short 'the land in
question') was acquired way back vide Award dated 05.11.1973 (Annexure
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126099-DB
P-2). An attempt, firstly, to nullify the said acquisition proceedings was
made by the petitioner by filing the civil writ petition bearing CWP
No.9679 of 2015 on the ground of release of land from the acquisition.
The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 27.01.2023
(Annexure P-6) passed by the Co-ordinate Bench headed by the then
Hon'ble the Chief Justice, while observing that the matter involved in that
petition was squarely covered by the decision of the Constitutional Bench
of the Apex Court in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal &
others, (2020) 8 SCC 129.
3. It is in such circumstances, the representation, apparently,
was moved on 30.11.2023 (Annexure P-7) which is, now, sought to be
processed from the respondents on the ground that the land in question is
not essential for the acquisition purpose and is unviable and non-essential.
4. Perusal of paragraph No.7 of the reply filed on behalf of the
respondent-State in the earlier round of litigation, i.e CWP No.9679 of
2015, would meet the answer regarding the viability aspect also. The same
reads as under:-
"That it is respectfully submitted that the land
in question has already vested in the State. The
acquisition is complete. The land in question is very
much essential to complete the development work as
per the planning. The land of the petitioners affects
100'-0 wide sector dividing road of Sector 36 and 37,
Faridabad as per the development plan."
5. Thus, the said fact would go on to show that the land in
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126099-DB
question is required to complete the development work as it affects 100'-0
wide sector dividing road of Sector 36 and 37, Faridabad as per the
development plan. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion
that the resort to file the representation is only an effort to hold on to the
land in question as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Swaroop
(Dead) through LRs and another Versus State of Haryana and others,
SLP (Civil) No.16421 of 2021, decided on 15.11.2021 and this fact has
also been considered by the Apex Court in the earlier judgment in
Raghubir Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2021 AIR
SC 5028 to come to the conclusion that the essentiality and non-viability is
to be seen from the angle of the State and not from the landowners.
6. Thus, in the present writ petition, once a specific stand has
already been taken by the petitioner regarding the essentiality and viability
in the earlier round of litigation, we do not deem it appropriate that the
whole exercise is required to be repeated by deciding the representation as
claimed in the present writ petition.
7. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed in
limine.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
September 23, 2024 JUDGE
Yag Dutt
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: No
3 of 3
