No Well Founded Leverage In Petitioners Claiming Parity With Petitioners In Distinct Geographical Contexts” – Punjab & Haryana HC Upholds Land Acquisition Notifications in Palwal
In a significant ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court on Tuesday upheld the validity of notifications issued for the acquisition of land in Palwal, Haryana, dismissing a writ petition challenging the same. The Double Bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur delivered the judgement, emphasizing the unique geographical and factual context of the case which distinguished it from previous judgements cited by the petitioners.
Legal Background and Challenge:
The petitioners, Pankaj Manga and others, challenged two notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, issued for the development of residential sectors in Palwal. They sought quashing of these notifications on grounds similar to a previous case where acquisition notifications had been quashed. The petitioners argued that their circumstances were identical to the earlier case, thus meriting a similar decision.
Court’s Findings and Observations:
Distinction in Context: The court noted significant differences between the geographical locations and specific circumstances of the earlier case and the present one, stating, “the reliance as made upon the said decision is a mis-placed reliance, as the verdict became confined but only in respect of the lands located in District Faridabad.”
Compliance and Rejection of Objections: The High Court found that the acquisition process was carried out in strict compliance with statutory provisions, and all objections raised by the petitioners under Section 5A of the Act were justifiably rejected after due hearings.
Non-Applicability of the Act of 2013: The court observed that the petitioners’ lands were acquired before the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force, and adequate compensation measures were in place. Hence, Section 24(2) regarding lapsing of acquisition did not apply.
Misplaced Reliance on Precedents: The petitioners’ reliance on a precedent involving land acquisition in a different district was found to be misplaced. The Bench highlighted, “There is no well-founded leverage in the petitioners for theirs claiming parity with the petitioners in the writ petition.”
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the claims raised by the petitioners. The notifications for acquisition and the consequent awards were maintained and affirmed. The court also directed that the acquiring authority may proceed to make a lawful award where necessary.
Date of Decision: April 24, 2024
Pankaj Manga And Ors. Vs. State of Haryana And Ors.
