Mr. Rohan Moudgil, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocat for & Ors. v. State o State of Haryana” conn r connected cases, it was directed & Ors.

Mr. Rohan Moudgil, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocat for the petitioners. vocate for dvocate Mr. Harmanjot Singh Gill, Ad for the respondents-HSVP. ill, Advocate NIDHI GU HI GUPTA J. (Oral) Present contempt petition ition has been filed alleging violation o tion of order dated 22.1.2014 (An (Annexure P-1) passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP- -7694-2006 titled as “Urmil Yadav vs. v vs. State of Haryana and others”, w , whereby while relying upon the judgme udgment dated 31.10.2013 passed in C d in CWP No.9321 of 2000 titled as “Surinde urinder Kumar and others vs. State o State of Haryana and others” and other conn r connected cases, it was directed tha ed that “…With reference to the issues rais raised in the instance cases, we fin e find that the same shall stand asnwered i red if the directions contained in par para 24 of the order passed in Surinder K er Kumar's case (supra) are applie pplied mutatis mutandis in the instance ca ce cases also. We order accordingl ingly. Since the parties are at VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-4057-2024 (O & M) 2 variance w ce with regard to the structures in ex in existence found at the time of Section 4 o n 4 of issuance of notification and no d no action admittedly has ever been taken aken against any of the petitioners fo rs for raising any unauthorized constructio uction, we direct that constructions w ons which are in existence as on the date, sh te, shall be considered for the purpos rpose of passing release orders in terms o s of order issued here-in-above. One clarificatory direction, however, n er, needs to be issued. It is pointed o d out by the State counsel that some of the f the residential houses might be loc e located on the site earmarked for vital pu al public utilities. If that is so and and if it becomes imperative to demolish s ish such a residential house, we di e direct that the affected land owner sha shall be given equivalent size of l of land by releasing the same from the a he acquired land. This would be wit e without prejudice to the right of such ow h owner to seek compensation for t for the structure though having got the lan land equivalent to the acquired lan land, they shall not be entitled to payment ment of compensation for the acquir quired land. This exercise may be underta ertaken by the authorities after fina finalization of the development plan of th f the acquired land. It is furthe rther clarified that wherever constructed ucted portion has already been relea released by the authorities, they may consid onsider the desirability of releasing sing the additional open space, if so requi equired, for the proper and useful eful enjoyment of the released property… …..” Learned counsel for the respo respondents has pointed out that the aforesa foresaid judgment dated 31.10.2013 p 2013 passed in Surinder Kumar’s case (supra upra) was carried in appeal before th efore the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said ap said appeals came to be disposed of v d of vide order dated 31.01.2018 VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-4057-2024 (O & M) 3 passed in ed in SLP No.15302-2014, whereby hereby the following order was passed :- “6. After hearing lea learned counsel for the parties at length, we are of th of the opinion that the matters are such, in which certa certain areas have already been released and it was was argued on the basis of photographs that a larg large number of constructions have already come up up in the area. It would be in the fitness of the case, t se, that the competent authority consider the cases sym sympathetically, after hearing the land-owners and ta d take a decision objectively in terms of the policy wit with respect to release of the land, within a period o od of three months from today. Till then, status quo quo as on today, shall be maintained by the parti parties. The land owners are at liberty to file their re r representations within three weeks from today.

7. The directions pa s passed in the impugned order are hereby set aside. Th e. The decision is to be taken by the competent authorit ority without being influenced by our setting aside th e the directions passed by the High Court. With the the aforesaid directions, the impugned order stands ands modified and the appeals are partly allowed. Pe . Pending application, if any, stands disposed of." Learned counsel for the respondents submits the r therefore directions issued by the High C igh Court were set aside, and it was directe directed that the competent authority hority shall consider the cases of the landow landowners sympathetically, after af ter affording an opportunity of hearing, an ng, and take a decision objectively ctively in accordance with the VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-4057-2024 (O & M) 4 applicable cable policy. It was further directed th cted that status quo be maintained for a limit limited period and that the impugn mpugned directions of the High Court wou t would not influence the decisio ecision-making process of the competent etent authority. In view of the aforesaid deve d development, it is evident that the very f very foundation of the order dated dated 22.01.2014, compliance whereof is eof is sought through the present esent contempt proceedings, no longer surv er survives, the same having been been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme C eme Court. Once the principal judgme udgment itself has been nullified, no question uestion of its willful disobedience wou e would arise. Consequently, no cause of ac of action survives in favour of the petition etitioners for invoking the contempt ju mpt jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the present conte t contempt petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any if any, shall also stand disposed of. , 2026 April 06, 2 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document