Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder And Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 14 December, 2023
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Sudeepti Sharma
2023:PHHC:160500-DB
CWP-28405-2018 1-
105
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-28405-2018
Date of Decision : 14.12.2023.
Surinder & Others ....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana & Ors. ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Ishnoor Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G. Haryana with
Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG Haryana for respondent Nos. 1 & 3.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate and
Mr. Kushaldeep K. Manchanda and Shivam Garg, Advocates
For respondent No.2 - HSVP.
-.-
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioners herein seek making of a declaration, that notification dated 20.04.1990 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1894") and, which became succeeded by a declaration, under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 (Annexure P-2), thus being quashed and set aside. In pursuance to the above, an award bearing No.8 dated 23.03.1993 (Annexure P-3) became passed in respect of the acquired lands, therefore a prayer is also made for the quashing of Annexure P-3.
2. In the instant writ petition a challenge is also made to Annexure P-11, whereby in pursuance to directions passed by this Court on 21.12.2016, on TRIPTI SAINI 2023.12.18 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh 2023:PHHC:160500-DB CWP-28405-2018 2- Civil Writ Petition No. 26480 of 2016, titled as Surinder & Others Vs. State of Haryana and other, the Authority concerned, declined the prayers raised in the apposite representations, wherebys the petitioners claimed relief, that the petitioners lands be released from acquisition.
3. For the reasons to be assigned, hereinafter, the writ claims are liable to be dismissed:-
i) that this Court does not deem it fit and appropriate to declare the launched acquisition proceedings to becomes lapsed by invoking the mandate as engrafted in Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2013").
ii) the reasons for making the above conclusion, is based, on the evident fact, that the Acquiring Authority has adduced, before this Court thus cogent discharging material, in satisfaction of the duo, of the parameters, enshrined in judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as "Indore Development Authority Versus Manoharlal and Others'[2020(4) R.C.R (Civil) 668, inasmuch as, qua
(a) Physical possession of acquired lands becoming delivered to the Beneficiary Department concerned, through Rapat No.425, dated 23.03.1993;
(b) the assessed compensation amount becoming released to the petitioners, as per award statement on 23.03.1993;
(c) the adduction of the above discharging evidence, whereby satisfaction is meted to be twin parameters (supra), as enshrined, in the verdict supra, as made by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, thus, constrains this Court TRIPTI SAINI 2023.12.18 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh 2023:PHHC:160500-DB CWP-28405-2018 3-
to conclude that resultantly, the petitioners are not entitled to become endowed with the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
iii) The declining order Annexure P-11 as made by the Authority concerned, on the petitioners representations, wherebys the petitioners claim for release of the lands became rejected, also does not requires, the same becoming interfered with. The reason for upholding Annexure P-11 ensues, from a reading of Annexure P-11 whereons speakings occur, that the acquired lands become acquired for the raising thereons of residential, commercial, Institutional and open space at Gurugram. Therefore, when the acquired lands are an integral component of the lay out maps, as such, the said drawn layout plan by the Engineering Cell, of the Acquiring Authority, but cannot become tinkered with by this Court as thereby this Court would untenably function as an expert, which otherwise it becomes restrained, by a plethora of judgments, to do so.
4. In view of the above discussion, the present writ petition is dismissed. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of (SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE December 14, 2023 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) tripti JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No TRIPTI SAINI 2023.12.18 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh