Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunil Kumar vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 13 February, 2025
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Vikas Suri
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:021205-DB
CWP-27323-2015 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-27323-2015 (O&M)
Reserved on: 10.02.2025
Pronounced on: 13.02.2025
SUNIL KUMAR
.....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Argued by: Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate,
Ms. Anu Pal, Advocate and
Mr. Japsehaj Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana with
Mr. P.P. Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana,
Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana and
Mr. Karan Jindal, Assistant A.G. Haryana.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate,
Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate,
Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate and
Ms. Saanvi Singla, Advocate
for the respondent-HSIIDC.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner asks for
relief qua de-notification or for release of the petition lands, thus on the
ground, that the earlier issued notification(s) Annexure P-1, and,
Annexure P-2, as became respectively issued on 22.06.2006, and,
20.06.2007, hence in terms of Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:021205-DB
CWP-27323-2015 (O&M) -2-
Act, 1894 (hereinafter for short call as the 'Act of 1894'), thus inviting
the mandate of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (hereinafter for short refer to as the 'Act of 2013'), whereby there
occurs lapsing of the earlier launched acquisition proceedings under the
'Act of 1894'.
2. The instant writ petition became earlier allowed by this
Court vide judgment dated 04.12.2017, thereby holding that the
acquisition proceedings qua the land of the petitioner stands lapsed in
view of the Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, Relevant paragraph
whereof becomes extracted hereinafter.
"For the reasons mentioned above, in our opinion,
one condition as contained in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
having been complied with, the acquisition of land in
question has lapsed. However, the State shall be at liberty
to withdraw the amount of compensation deposited with the
Court in the case of present petitioner.
The State shall also be at liberty to either initiate
fresh proceedings for acquisition of land or negotiate with
the landowners for purchasing/ retaining the land in
accordance with law, in case the land in question is
required for completion of any project or otherwise. The
petitioner shall maintain status quo regarding the land in
question for a period of six months to enable the State to
take decision.
The writ petition is allowed."
3. Against the said judgment passed by this Court on
04.12.2017, the respondent-HSIIDC approached the Apex Court
through its filing SLP(C) No.008411-2019. Vide order dated
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:021205-DB
CWP-27323-2015 (O&M) -3-
29.02.2024, the apposite SLP was allowed, and, the impugned judgment
dated 04.12.2017, as passed by this Court was quashed and set aside,
and further remanded the instant lis to this Court for deciding it on the
issues other than the one covering the field in 'Indore Development
Authority Versus Manoharlal and others', to which SLP (Civil) Nos.
9036-9038 of 2016. Relevant paragraph whereof becomes extracted
hereinafter.
"In such view of the matter, the appeals stand
allowed.
Accordingly, the impugned order stands set aside
and the matters are remitted back to the High Court to be
decided on the issues other than the one covering the field
in Indore Development Authority (supra)."
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
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:021205-DB
CWP-27323-2015 (O&M) -4-
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
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.10 of the
reply on affidavit, reveals, that possession over the acquired lands
became assumed through rapat roznamcha No.302 dated 28.11.2008.
7. Moreover, when it is further indicated in the reply, on
affidavit, furnished to the writ petition, by the respondent concerned,
that out of the total amount of assessed compensation, under award
dated 28.11.2008, more than 90% award amount has already been
accepted the landowners concerned. Furthermore, it has been stated that
as far as the compensation of the land of the petitioner is concerned,
despite the same becoming tendered, yet the petitioner not seeking
disbursement(s) thereof, and the same is lying deposited in the LAC
account, 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
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:021205-DB
CWP-27323-2015 (O&M) -5-
sequel, the above made writ claim is declined.
9. Further, a reading of para No.8 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 their said abandonment, thus tantamounts
to waiver of the said granted opportunity, besides fosters a further
conclusion, that the petitioner become estopped to claim before this
Court, that either they became forestalled to raise objections or the said
objections were summarily rejected.
10. Moreover, the plea of the petitioner qua his 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
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:021205-DB
CWP-27323-2015 (O&M) -6-
notification(s), and consequent thereto award are maintained and
affirmed.
13. Since the main cases itself has been decided, thus, all the
pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
(VIKAS SURI)
13.02.2025 JUDGE
Ithlesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
