Punjab and Haryana High Court Rejects Land Acquisition Challenge, Cites "Delay and Laches" as Key Factors

High Court maintains 2006 land acquisition by State of Haryana, penalizes petitioner for delayed legal action and non-compliance. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the petition filed by M/s Tinna Rubber and Infrastructure Limited, seeking to invalidate the land acquisition of their property in Panipat. The Court emphasized the importance of timely legal action and procedural compliance, ultimately rejecting the petition due to significant delay and laches.

M/s Tinna Rubber and Infrastructure Limited (the petitioner) contested the acquisition of 34 kanals and 8 marlas of land situated in Rajapur village, Panipat district, by the State of Haryana. The acquisition was initiated through notifications issued on June 16, 2006, and June 15, 2007, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The final award was pronounced on February 22, 2008. The petitioner argued that no compensation had been paid for the entire acquired land and that they still retained possession of 20 kanals and 12 marlas.

In response, the petitioner sought a declaration under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, claiming the acquisition had lapsed. Additionally, they requested the release of their land.

Procedural Non-Compliance: The High Court pointed out that the petitioner failed to file objections under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within the required timeframe. This omission deprived the petitioner of an opportunity to contest the acquisition effectively. The Court stated, "The claim for release of the subject land from acquisition is but an invented or strategized claim, and is required to be rejected."

Prior Legal Proceedings and Offers: The petitioner had unsuccessfully challenged the acquisition notifications earlier and did not comply with conditions for an alternative land allotment offered by the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSIIDC). "Despite an approval in principle for allotment of 2.55 acres of land to the petitioner, the required conditions remained unfulfilled, leading to the withdrawal of the said approval," noted the Court.

Delay and Laches: The Court underscored that the petition, filed in 2014, was unacceptably delayed given the acquisition notifications from 2006. Referencing the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Star Wire (India) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, the High Court emphasized that belated challenges to lawful acquisition proceedings are untenable. "The unreasonable delay denies to the petitioner the discretionary extraordinary remedy of mandamus, certiorari or any other relief," the Court observed.

The judgment highlighted the petitioner's failure to utilize available legal remedies by not filing timely objections and not fulfilling procedural requirements for an alternative land allotment. This abandonment, coupled with the delayed petition, led to the dismissal. The Court's decision underscores the critical importance of prompt legal action and adherence to procedural norms in land acquisition cases.

Justice Sureshwar Thakur remarked, "The claim for release of the subject land from acquisition, made post the pronouncement of the award, is but an invented or strategized claim, and is required to be rejected."

The Punjab and Haryana High Court's dismissal of the petition underscores the necessity of timely legal intervention and compliance with established procedures in land acquisition disputes. The imposition of costs further highlights the Court's stance on discouraging unwarranted and delayed challenges to lawful governmental actions. This judgment reinforces the legal framework governing land acquisition and the critical role of procedural adherence.

Date of Decision: April 29, 2024