Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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