JULY 17, 2025 Hajari and oth nd others … v. Ve State of Harya Haryana and others
Case Details
CWP No.17312 o 7312 of 2025 IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB JAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.1731 .17312 OF 2025 (O&M) RESERVED O VED ON: JULY 01, 2025 DATE OF DE F DECISION:JULY 17, 2025 Hajari and oth nd others ….Petitioners Versus Ve State of Harya Haryana and others ….Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP CORAM : HO HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPI HO DEEPAK SIBAL LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, Present : M for the petitioners. fo Mr. Pardeep Chauhan, Senior DAG M or DAG, Haryana. LAPITA BANE ANERJI, J. The prayer in the present writ Th t writ petition is primarily for issuance of a of a writ in the nature of mandam andamus to release the land of petitioners situ rs situated in village Tigra, Tehsil Tehsil and District Gurugram, pursuant to pol to policies of the State of Haryana ana dated 26.10.2007 (Annexure P-18), 24.01 24.01.2011 (Annexure P-19), 14.0 14.09.2018 (Annexure P-20), 21.07.2022 (A 22 (Annexure P-21) and order dat er dated 22.07.2022 (Annexure P-22). 2. i) The facts of the case in brief are na Th f are narrated hereinafter: The petitioners were owners in Th ers in possession of the land comprising in in Khewat No.22//23/1 and 22//23 22//23/2 admeasuring 07 Kanals 16 Marlas in v as in village Tigra, Tehsil and Distri District Gurugram. Notification under Section 4 ction 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1894 A 894 Act”) seeking to acquire the afore e aforesaid land of the petitioners Page 1 of 10 SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17312 o 7312 of 2025 was issued on ed on August 24, 2000. Notification u ation under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued issued on August 22, 2001 and an Aw an Award was passed on July 21, 2003. ii) The compensation awarded to the Th to the petitioners was deposited in the account o count of the Land Acquisition Collecto ollector. iii) To challenge the acquisition pr To ion proceedings, only petitioner No.1-Hajari fil filed a writ petition bearing CWP CWP No.11572 of 2008 and the same was disp sposed of by a Co-ordinate Benc Bench of this Court vide order dated July 25, 2 y 25, 2013 (Annexure P-7). iv) By the said order dated July 25, 20 By 25, 2013, the Co-ordinate Bench recorded that that the residential house of petit f petitioner No.1 already stood released from from acquisition. As far as the adj he adjoining piece of land was concerned, it w it was observed that the writ Court Court could not ascertain whether the land was was being used for domestic purpo purpose or that it could not be utilized for an for any public purpose. Accordingly, ingly, the competent authorities were directed t ected to carry out a fresh survey at the at the site and in the event it was found that no p at no public purpose could be served served by acquiring the left over land then the n the respondents were directed to c d to consider the desirability of releasing the le the left out land. However, in case th the authorities found that the said land coul could be utilized for the notified tified public purpose, they were directed to pas to pass a speaking order to that effec t effect within four months from the date of rece of receipt of a certified copy of the ord he order. v) Pursuant to the said order of th Pu of the Co-ordinate Bench, the Director Gener General, Urban Estate Department, H ent, Haryana, Panchkula got the site surveyed a eyed afresh by a Committee headed by ded by the Administrator HUDA and called for d for a report. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 10 CWP No.17312 o 7312 of 2025 vi) The Committee recommended Th nded release of 02 Kanals 10 Marlas of land f land out of the entire land admeasu measuring 07 Kanals 16 Marlas found encroach croached by petitioner No.1 as mark marked in yellow colour on the layout plan of S an of Sector-57. The government appr nt approved the recommendations made by the C the Committee. The Director Genera General taking into consideration the report, pas passed a speaking order directing cting the land marked in yellow colour on the e n the enclosed plan to be released subj subject to the condition that the petitioners wou rs would vacate and hand over the p the possession of the remaining vacant land. Th nd. Therefore, the petitioner No.1- Hajari was required to hand over the posse possession of the remaining land, in nd, including the land in Khasra No.22//23/2 (0 3/2 (0-4) to HUDA as a condition pr ion precedent to the release. The final release or ase order was directed to be passed o ssed only after the compliance of the above cond e condition. vii) A second writ petition being CWP A CWP No.6841 of 2014 was then filed by the p the present petitioners before this this High Court in which they prayed for issu or issuance of a writ of mandamus d mus directing the respondents to release their h heir house/land in view of Section 2 tion 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation sation and Transparency in Land Acq d Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement A ent Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to rred to as “the 2013 Act”). viii) A Co-ordinate Bench observed t A rved that in case the petitioners filed a detailed etailed and comprehensive representa esentation before the appropriate authority withi within a period of two months from s from the date of the order, the same would be uld be decided in accordance with l with law, by passing a speaking order and by by affording an opportunity of hear f hearing within a period of four months from th rom the date of receipt of the represe representation. Till such time the SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 10 CWP No.17312 o 7312 of 2025 matter was de as decided by the authority, statu tatus-quo was directed to be maintained by t
Legal Reasoning
ed by the parties. ix) The authority concerned opined th Th ined that there was no merit in the request made b ade by the petitioners under Section Section 24 of the 2013 Act. The possession of l of land had already been taken by ken by HUDA on July 21, 2003 which could b uld be evidenced from Rapat Rozna Roznamcha No.583 of the same date and the sa the said roznamcha issued by an inde n independent authority i.e Land Acquisition Co ion Collector was a substantive piece o piece of evidence to prove change of physical pos al possession. Subsequently, the land e land in dispute was encroached upon with the the mala fide intention by the petiti petitioners to take the benefit of Section 24 (2) 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. The petition etitioners could not provide any documentary ev tary evidence to show that they were i were in continuous possession of the land in disp in dispute. It was only due to the stat status-quo order passed by the High Court, the urt, the encroachers/ petitioners could n could not be removed. x) The petitioners again approached Th oached this Hon’ble High Court by filing CWP WP No. 8004 of 2017 “Hazari and and others v. State of Haryana and others”. Th
Decision
”. The said petition was disposed of sed of by the Co-ordinate Bench in terms of the of the judgment dated January 29, 2 29, 2018 in CWP No.13425 of 2015 “Vijay Pa y Pal and others v. State of Haryana yana and others”. xi) The writ petition being CWP No. Th P No.8004 of 2017 was allowed vide judgment gment dated January 29, 2018 on th on the ground that neither the petitioners agre rs agreed to receive the compensatio ensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisiti quisition Collector nor was the comp compensation amount deposited with the Refere Reference Court in accordance with S with Section 31 of the 1894 Act. Therefore, the a e, the acquisition proceedings were set ere set-aside. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 10 CWP No.17312 o 7312 of 2025 xii) The physical possession of the ac Th the acquired land where most of the petitioners oners had raised structures was also h also held to be retained by them. Therefore, it e, it was decided that the impu impugned acquisition of the land/properties perties had lapsed under Section 2 tion 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. However, it wa r, it was clarified that in the event the the State required the released land for a publi a public purpose, it could re-acquire th uire the same under the 2013 Act. Furthermore, ore, it was directed in case where pe ere petitioners or their co-sharers had received co ived compensation in respect of land, land, the said compensation was required to be to be refunded along with interest at rest at the statutory rate within a period of three three months. xiii) The State of Haryana preferred Th ferred an appeal from the said judgment. The t. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP n SLP (C ) No.19000 of 2019 set- aside the impu impugned order considering the law e law laid down by the Supreme Court in “Indo Indore Development Authority v. M v. Manohar Lal and others” reported in (20 n (2020) 8 SCC 129 followed in ed in “Haryana State Industrial and Infrastruc structure Development Corporation tion Limited and others v. M/s Honeywell Inte l International (India) Private Limi Limited” Civil Appeal No.2052 of 2023 dated 1 dated 11.04.2023. xiv) The impugned judgment was set Th set-aside and the matter was remitted back t back to the High Court to be decided o cided on issues other than the one covering the fi the field in Indore Development’s case (supra). The third writ petition being being CWP No.8004 of 2017 was was decided by a Co-ordinate Bench on Feb n February 14, 2025. The Hon’ble n’ble Bench dismissed the writ petition along along with costs assessed at Rs.25 Rs.25,000/- due to the reasons reproduced her ed herein under : SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 5 of 10 CWP No.17312 o 7312 of 2025 “xxx “x 11. The first round of litigation i 11 ion is embodied in writ petition titled as Hazari v. State of bearing No.11572 of 2008 title be rein, the present petitioners Haryana and others, wherein, Ha for quashing of the notifications unsuccessfully claimed relief for q un under Sections 4 and 6 of the as became respectively issued und as ion was disposed of with the Ac Act of 1894. The said petition to carry out fresh survey at the direction to the respondents to ca dir thereto, the Director General relevant site. In compliance ther re has passed the order dated Ur Urban Estates Department has whereby 1273 sq. mtr. was 21 21.02.2014 (Annexure P-6) whe ion that the present petitioners released, but with the condition re nd including land comprised in sh shall vacate the remaining land in said order supra has not been Kh Khasra No.22/23/2 (0-4). The said s. Resultantly, the said order challenged by the petitioners. R ch clusive effect, whereby, the ac acquires binding and conclus from challenging the order pe petitioners become stopped fro supra. su 12 12. embarked into by the present pe em 20 2014, through their instituting C No No.6841 of 2014. Since prior to petition, thus, the Act of 2013 cam pe pr present petitioners claimed the de declaration in their favour. The sa the provisions embodied in Sectio the However, the said writ petition w Ho to to the petitioners to file detailed respondent authorities through an re on 22.04.2015 (Annexure P-10) on re representation before Zonal Com said representation was reje sa 13.12.2016. The petitioners have 13 sa said order supra dated 13.12.2016 Se Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 a the q2uashing of order dated 13.12 the of litigation which became The second round of nt petitioners was in the year ng Civil Writ Petition bearing r to the filing of the said writ came into force, whereupon the the rendition of a lapsing he said claim was banked upon ction 24 (2) of the Act of 2013. on was disposed of with liberty ailed representation before the h an order made by this Court 10). The petitioners have filed Committee, Gurugram and the rejected, vide order dated ave filed instant petition before .2016 for release of land as per 13 and have further prayed for 13.12.2016. 13 13. Conspicuously, it is also petitioners had also raised a c pe co compensation as became determin thr through their instituting through Land Acquisition Collector con La pe petition cast under Section 18 of the the award made on the said refere n further motion there against in tra travelled upto the Apex Court. The on on one hand, the petitioners wer vis-à-vis them of the provisions em vis the the Act of 2013and on the other enhancement of compensation in en also visibly clear that the a claim for enhancement of ermined under the Act of 1894, ough the aegis of the learned concerned, thus, a reference of the Act of 1894. Moreover, eference petition did also result ainst being raised and which . The impact of the above is that were claiming the application s embodied in Section 24 (2) of ther hand, they were claiming n in amount higher than the Page 6 of 10 SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17312 o 7312 of 2025 ones as became awarded in the on aw award which became rendered u galvanizations at the instance o ga parallel remedies, is but magnifac pa did not have a realistic intentio did vis favourable application vis-à-vis fav enclosed in Section 24 (2) of the en su supra they were working onl realtor/developer concerned. re their favour in terms of the ed under the Act of 1894. The e of the present petitioner of nifacatory of the fact, that they ention, as such to claim any the mandate f the Act of 2013 but as stated only at the behest of the them of ing that even if the amount of 14 14. Even otherwise, assuming determined in the proceedings the the compensation as became dete f 1894 and which ultimately launched under the Act of 18 lau rt, did not become received by tra travelled upto the Apex Court, d very fact that they had invoked the the present petitioners, but the ver nhancement of compensation, such a remedy, thus for enhan su medies under Section 18 of the thr through theirs availing the remed stive that they had accepted the Ac Act of 1894, is plainly suggestive of 1894 thereby they become award passed under the Act of aw quently invoke the remedy as co completely stopped to subsequen of the Act of 2013. Naturally en enshrined in Section 24 (2) of t nvinced that rather than the thereby, this Court is fully conv the inely aggrieved, they are being pr present petitioners being genuinel erned, thus to continue to ill- pr prodded by the realtor concerne ast under Section 24 (2) of the agitate a claim which is ill-cast u ag , the it also appears it Act of 2013. Furthermore, Ac is, prima-facie, indulging in realtor/developer concerned is, re too ma ill-laid the maintaining repeatedly before this court. re laid motions and instant that that 15. Finding no merit in the 15 dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/ dis for forthwith deposited by the petitio the the Bar Association of the Punjab Chandigarh. Ch the writ petition, the same is 000/-. The said imposed cost be titioners with the Treasurer of njab and Haryana High Court, 16. Pending applications, if any 16 f any, also stands disposed of.” xv) The aforesaid order dated Febru Th February 14, 2025 was assailed before the Ho he Hon’ble Supreme Court vide or ide order dated April 21, 2025 wherein the A the Apex Court refused to interfere terfere with the impugned order dated February bruary 14, 2025 and had only set- -aside the costs assessed at Rs.25,000/-. 3. Learned counsel appearing on Le g on behalf of the petitioners submits that co that considering the provisions of Sec of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 7 of 10 CWP No.17312 o 7312 of 2025 the land of the of the petitioners acquired under the er the notifications dated August 24, 2000 and A and August 22, 2001 under Sections ections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act, should be relea e released from acquisition. 4. Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act is r Se ct is reproduced herein below: “Section 24- Land acquisition p 1894 shall be deemed to have lap ion process under Act No.1 of e lapsed in certain cases- (2) Notwithstanding anything c in case of land acquisition proc Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 under the said section 11 has be prior to the commencement of possession of land has compensation has not been paid be deemed to have lapsed and th if it so chooses, shall initiate the acquisition afresh in accordance Act: ng contained in sub-section (1), proceedings initiated under the (1 of 1894), where an award s been made five years or more t of this Act but the physical has not been the paid the said proceedings shall d the appropriate Government, e the proceedings of such land ance with the provisions of this taken or the Provided that where an a compensation in respect of a ma not been deposit in the account o beneficiaries specified in the no under Section 4 of the said Lan entitled to compensation in acco of this Act.” an award has been made and a majority of land holdings has nt of the beneficiaries, then, all e notification for acquiescence Land Acquisition Act, shall be accordance with the provision 5. The judgment of the Co-ordinate Th rdinate Bench dated January 29, 2018 that allow t allowed the writ petition under Sect r Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act has already bee dy been set-aside by the Supreme Cou e Court in view of law laid down in Indore Deve Development’s case (supra). 6. It has been unambiguously held It held in Indore Development’s case (supra) th that no acquisition proceedings w ings will lapse as long as one of the limbs of Se of Section 24 of the 2013 Act has be has been satisfied. As long as the State had dep d deposited the compensation wit n with one of the competent authorities it w es it would be deemed as payment of ent of compensation to the land owners. Furthe Furthermore, possession of the prop e property could sufficiently be evidenced from d from rapat roznamcha. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 8 of 10 CWP No.17312 o 7312 of 2025 7. In view of the order passed by th In by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on February 27 ary 27, 2024 the Co-ordinate Bench o ench of this High Court heard the third writ petit it petition being CWP No.8804 of 20 of 2017, on merits afresh. The said writ petiti petition was dismissed with costs by sts by the Co-ordinate Bench on February 14, 20 14, 2025. The said judgment was carr as carried in appeal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court Court summarily rejected the appeal appeal vide order dated April 21, 2025 and only nly the costs component was interfe interfered with. 8. Petitioner No.1 along with the oth Pe the other petitioners despite order dated February bruary 21, 2014 passed by the Direc Director General, Urban Estate Department, re ent, refused to vacate and hand over over the peaceful possession of the land which which was not released by the autho authorities including the land in Khasra No.22// o.22//23/2 (0-4). No appeal was filed s filed by the petitioners from the said order of th r of the Director General. Instead a f ad a fresh writ petition was filed being CWP No P No.6841 of 2014, in clear abuse of use of the process of law in order to circumvent vent the order passed by the Direct Director General, HUDA. Apart from petitioner itioner No.1, no other petitioner even even challenged the notifications dated August 2 gust 24, 2000 and August 22, 2001 iss issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Ac 94 Act or the Award dated July 21, 2 21, 2003. For the first time they prayed for rele or release of their land 11 years after after passing of the award, upon consideration o ation of the objections filed under Sect er Section 5-A of the 1894 Act. 9. The petitioners had also pray Th prayed for enhancement of compensation ation granted by the award under Se der Section 18 of the 1894 Act which was una as unambiguous evidence of the fact th fact that the Award was accepted by them. Thus, Thus, the petitioners are clearly barre y barred by the exposition of law in the judgme udgment of Indore Development’s nt’s case (supra) to maintain proceedings un ngs under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 A 013 Act. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 9 of 10 CWP No.17312 o 7312 of 2025 10. In the light of the aforesaid disc In id discussion and the petitioners having not cha ot challenged the order of the Direct Director General dated February 21, 2014 now now cannot seek for release of the e f the entire land admeasuring 07 Kanals 16 Ma 6 Marlas, under the aforesaid policie policies. Non-compliance of the order dated Feb ted February 21, 2014 clearly indicate dicates that the petitioners did not act with bona ona fide intent and have time and e and again sought to perpetuate their illegal po gal possession by blatantly showing wing scant regard to the Rule of Law. Once the ce the authorities have opined that the hat the land is required for future development w ent work the said decision cannot be not be subject matter of judicial review unless nless wholly unreasonable, arbitrary itrary or hit by mala fide intent. No case has b has been made out by the petitioner titioners on the aforesaid line of argument nor t nor is there any pleading to show ow which legal right of the petitioners hav rs have been violated. Therefore, this e, this Court finds no merit in the present writ pe rit petition. 11. The present writ petition is also Th also barred by the principles of constructive tive res judicata. Accordingly, CW , CWP No.17312 of 2025, is dismissed with with costs assessed at Rs.25,000/-, b , being devoid of any merit. Connected applications, if any, are Co ny, are also accordingly disposed 12. of. K SIBAL) (DEEPAK SIB DGE JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) (L JUDGE 7, 2025 JULY 17, 2025 shalini Whether Speak Whether report Speaking/reasoned: reportable: Yes/No Ye Yes/No Ye SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 10 of 10