Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court Mother Killing Minor Children Over Husband's Refusal To Take Her To Workplace Is Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Of Registered Agreement To Sell Is No Longer Discretionary Post-2018 Amendment: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Determine If Tenanted Property Belongs To Joint Family Even If Tenancy Order Stands In Individual Karta's Name: Bombay High Court Notice Under Section 107 BNSS Mandatory Before Attaching Property; Right To Property Is A Constitutional Right: Calcutta High Court Post-Cognizance Arrest 'Makes No Sense' If Investigation Completed Without Arrest: Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under BNSS Criminal Courts Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Inheritance Disputes Over Appreciated Land Values: Gujarat High Court Quashes Fraud Case Accused Must Raise Probable Defence To Rebut Statutory Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act If Signatures Are Undisputed: Himachal Pradesh High Court Passing Departmental Exam Not A Pre-requisite For Grant Of ACP/MACP Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Convenience Of Family And Accused Paramount For Jail Shifting; Trial Court Can't Reject Application Merely For Non-Residency: J&K High Court Litigants Who Attempt To Pollute The Stream Of Justice With Tainted Hands Are Not Entitled To Any Relief: Karnataka High Court Trial Court Must Implement Modified Preliminary Decree In Full: Telangana High Court Directs Partition Of Property Omitted In Final Decree Proceedings If Grievance Is Real But Lies Before Different Forum, Plaint Should Be Returned Under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, Not Rejected: Rajasthan High Court Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due To Severity Of Economic Offence If Evidence Is Documentary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Non-Compliance With Mandatory Duty To Inform Grounds Of Arrest Under Section 47 BNSS Is Impermissible: Orissa High Court Grants Bail Land Acquisition Award Finality Under Section 12 Is A Bar To Writ Petitions Challenging 'Public Necessity': Madhya Pradesh High Court State As Eminent Domain Is Obligated To Pay Adequate Compensation, Not Minimum To Suit Its Convenience: Madras High Court Kerala High Court Grants Emergency Parole To Life Convict To Execute Sale Deed, Repay Bank Loan To Prevent Family's Eviction High Court Cannot Act As Court Of First Instance In Service Matters Amenable To CAT Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Election Tribunal Has No Jurisdiction To Declare Caste Certificate Forged, Authority Vests Solely With Scrutiny Committee: Allahabad High Court Order IX Rule 7 CPC Requires 'Good Cause' Not 'Sufficient Cause'; Trial Court Can't Apply Higher Threshold To Pre-Decree Proceedings: Telangana High Court Victim Cannot Maintain Appeal Seeking Enhancement Of Sentence Under Section 372 CrPC; Such Power Exclusively With State: Rajasthan High Court Disability Pension: Presumption In Favour Of Personnel If Found Fit At Enrollment; Percentage Must Be Rounded Off: Punjab & Haryana HC Employee Entitled To Second Kramonnati Benefit If Promotion To Higher Post Does Not Result In Higher Pay Scale: Madhya Pradesh High Court Borrowers Can Be Granted Opportunity To Clear Loan Overdues In Installments To Prevent Coercive Action Under SARFAESI Act: Kerala High Court

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