RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing the present writ petition, petitioners have challenged notification dtd. 16/8/2001 (Annexure P-4) issued under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as '1894 Act'), notification dtd. 14/8/2002 (Annexure P-5) issued under Sec. 6 of the 1894 Act and the award dtd. 26/2/2004 with a prayer for release of their land as per Sec. 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as '2013 Act').

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners asserts that in the light of the provisions as contained in Sec. 24 (2) of 2013 Act, respondents having neither taken physical possession of the land nor have the compensation amount been disbursed, would render the land of the petitioners acquired vide award dtd. 26/2/2004 liable to be released, in view of Sec. 24 (2) of 2013 Act especially petitioners No.5 to 10 have constructed certain shops and houses thereon and are residing there. It is asserted that the land acquisition proceedings under 1894 Act would lapse. Plea of discrimination has also been pressed into service by the petitioners stating that the land adjacent to their land has been released by giving the benefit of Sec. 24 (2) of 2013 Act in the light of the order dtd. 1/12/2016 passed by this Court in CWP No.17513 of 2016, titled as 'Vinod Kumar & others Vs. State of Haryana & others' (Annexure P-6). He, therefore, submits that the land of the petitioners is similarly situated as that of the persons whose land has been released. Counsel for the petitioners, on this basis, asserts that the notifications dtd. 16/8/2001 (Annexure P-4) and dtd. 14/8/2002 (Annexure P-5) as also award dtd. 26/2/2004 cannot sustain and deserve to be quashed.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that for applicability of Sec. 24 (2) of 2013 Act, which would entitle the petitioners to the benefit of release of land on the lapsing of the acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, there should neither be physical possession taken nor compensation paid. If any of the two contingencies has been complied with, then the land acquisition proceedings under 1894 Act would not lapse. In this regard, counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others 2020 (AIR) SC 1496.