HOSHIYARI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Besides the applicability of Sec. 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred as Act of 2013), the issue posed before us to answer is as to whether Sec. 24(2) of Act of 2013 provide an arm or tool to question the legality of proceedings undertaken decades back on any ground including of discrimination; in clear ignorance of the delay and laches on the part of the land owner which otherwise disentitle him/ her to seek the relief being prayed for.

(2.) For the purpose of deciding the controversy involved, we deem it appropriate to notice certain elemental facts of the case in hand as pleaded before us by the respective parties. Vide the instant petition filed in the year 2016, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the acquisition notifications issued under sec. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as 'Act of 1894') dtd. 4/1/2002 and 31/12/2002 respectively; followed by the award dtd. 29/9/2004, thereby acquiring the land for public purpose namely, for the development and utilization of land as Residential, Transport/ Communication situated in the revenue estate of Village Bohar, Hadbast no. 68 and Village Para, Hadbast No. 67, Tehsil and District Rohtak, Sector 4 and 5 under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. Besides the petitioners have prayed for setting aside the order dtd. 14/3/2016 passed by the Zonal Administrator, HUDA -cum- Additional Director Urban Estate Rohtak, in compliance of the order dtd. 19/3/2015 passed by this Court in CWP no. 19228 of 2014. Additionally, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus to declare that the acquisition proceedings in question have lapsed qua their land, in view of deeming fiction postulated under sec. 24(2) of Act of 2013; by claiming that in their case neither the physical possession has been taken nor compensation for the land acquired has either been paid/ tendered to them or deposited in the Reference Court under sec. 31 of Act of 1894.

(3.) The perusal of the factual matrix as stated by the petitioners reveals that by filing the instant petition even though predominantly the plea of lapsing as provided under sec. 24(2) of Act of 2013 has been taken to secure the release of their land from acquisition but besides thereto, they have chosen to take all the pleas including discrimination questioning the legality of acquisition proceedings undertaken decades back.