Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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