KISHAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are seeking quashing of the order dtd. 12/11/2021 (Annexure P-17) passed by the Principal Secretary, Town and Country Planning-cum-Principal Secretary, Urban Estate Department, whereby representation made by the petitioners under Sec. 101-A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short '2013 Act'), has been dismissed. Further prayer has been made for quashing of the notification dtd. 24/8/2000 (Annexure P-9) issued under Sec. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Award dtd. 21/7/2003 (Annexure P-12).

(2.) On 18/2/2022, when this case was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners had sought time to get necessary information, whether the plot of the petitioners was surrounded by other plots, which were carved out in Sector 57, Gurugram.

(3.) Today, learned counsel for the petitioners has informed that the earlier writ petitions i.e. CWP-13332-2007 and CWP-11330-2007, challenging the notifications issued under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were dismissed by this Court on 28/10/2013. A perusal of the said judgment shows that the petitioner(s) (in those petitions) had challenged the notification on two counts. The first ground was that the land was being acquired for residential purpose and the petitioners/builder had already requested for grant of CLU for that very purpose and secondly, the acquisition had been made without application of mind and the plea that the acquired land would be used for by carving out residential plots was an after thought plea taken at the time of filing of the written statement. The said petitions were dismissed by observing that the land had been acquired for multiple purposes like commercial, residential and institutional. 2953 plots were planned and floated for allotment, but due to non-availability of land, Haryana Urban Development Authority had not been able to offer plots to 236 allottees. It was further observed that the petitioner/builder had purchased the land on 16/12/2003 i.e. after issuance of notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, on 9/6/2003. Since the land had been acquired for public purpose and after floating out the plots, offer could not be made to 236 allottees, the notifications issued under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Act were upheld.