Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

State’s Right to Retain Lands for Public Purpose: Lands Integral to Layout Plans: Dismisses Petition for Release of Acquired Lands: Punjab & Haryana HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgement, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Rohtas and others, seeking the release of their lands acquired by the State of Haryana. The Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma ruled that the petitioners' lands, being an integral component of the layout plans, were essential for public purpose and hence non-releasable.

The petitioners had approached the High Court seeking a mandamus for the release of their lands under clause 7 of the policy dated 14.09.2018. The State had decided to release lands that could not be utilized by the respondents. However, the Court observed, “A reading of the said contents does make graphic emergence(s), that the petition lands are earmarked for the apposite public purpose and thereby are utilized, or are utilizable, and or, are viable for facilitating the apposite public purpose.”

The Court further elucidated on the application of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act, 2013), particularly focusing on the lapsing provisions under Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. It was noted that the petitioners' claim for a lapsing declaration was not sustainable as compensation had been deposited, and possession had been assumed.

Addressing the petitioners’ reliance on Section 101 A of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and the policy dated 14.09.2018, the Court found their arguments unhinged in the light of the lands being essential for public purpose. "Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners has untenably planked the above argument, thus premised on the provisions of Section 101 A of the 'Act of 2013' and/or, upon, policy dated 14.09.2018," the judgement read.

The Bench also rejected the petitioners' claim of parity with other land losers like Mohinder Singh, stating that the circumstances of their case were distinctly different. The Court held, "The reason for drawing the above inference, becomes galvanized, from the factum that the release as was made, in favor of the said Mohinder Singh, was through an order made on 29.05.2019."

In its final observations, the Court remarked, “In aftermath, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, and, with the above observations, the same is dismissed.” The judgement reaffirms the State's authority to retain lands acquired for public purposes and sets a significant precedent in matters of land acquisition and release under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

Date of Decision: 25th January 2024

ROHTAS AND ORS.  VS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.     

 

Latest Legal News