Hajari Vs State of Haryana and Others

T he prayer in the present w r it petition is primarily for issuance of a writ in the nature of mand a mus to release the land of petitioners s i tuated in village Tigra, Teh s il and District Gurugram, pursuant to policies of the State of Haryana dated 26.10.2007 (Annexure P-18), 24. 0 1.2011 (Annexure P-19), 14.09.2018 (Annexure P-20), 21.07.2022 ( Annexure P-21) and order d a ted 22.07.2022 (Annexure P-22). 2. T he facts of the case in brief are narrated hereinafter: i) T he petitioners were owners in possession of the land comprising i n Khewat No.22//23/1 and 22// 2 3/2 admeasuring 07 Kanals 16 Marlas i n village Tigra, Tehsil and Dis t rict Gurugram. Notification under Sectio n 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to SHALINI BHATIA as “the 1894 Act”) seeking to acquire the af o resaid land of the petitioners 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 1 of 10

¶15

CWP No.1731 2 of 2025

¶16

was issued o n August 24, 2000. Notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issu e d on August 22, 2001 and an A ward was passed on July 21, 2003.

¶17

ii) T he compensation awarded to t h e petitioners was deposited in the accoun t of the Land Acquisition Colle c tor. iii) T o challenge the acquisition p roceedings, only petitioner No.1-Hajari f iled a writ petition bearing C W P No.11572 of 2008 and the same was di s posed of by a Co-ordinate Be n ch of this Court vide order dated July 25, 2013 (Annexure P-7). iv) B y the said order dated July 25, 2013, the Co-ordinate Bench recorded tha t the residential house of pe t itioner No.1 already stood released fro m acquisition. As far as the a djoining piece of land was concerned, it was observed that the writ Cou r t could not ascertain whether the land wa s being used for domestic pur p ose or that it could not be utilized for a ny public purpose. Accordingl y , the competent authorities were directe d to carry out a fresh survey at t h e site and in the event it was found that n o public purpose could be serv e d by acquiring the left over land then th e respondents were directed to consider the desirability of releasing the left out land. However, in case t he authorities found that the said land co u ld be utilized for the notifie d public purpose, they were directed to p a ss a speaking order to that ef fe ct within four months from the date of re c eipt of a certified copy of the o r der. v) P ursuant to the said order of the Co-ordinate Bench, the Director General, Urban Estate Department, Haryana, Panchkula got the site surveyed afresh by a Committee headed by the Administrator HUDA and called fo r a report.

¶18

SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

Page 2 of 10

¶20

CWP No.1731 2 of 2025

¶21

vi) T he Committee recommended release of 02 Kanals 10 Marlas of la n d out of the entire land adme a suring 07 Kanals 16 Marlas found encroached by petitioner No.1 as ma r ked in yellow colour on the layout plan o f Sector-57. The government ap p roved the recommendations made by the Committee. The Director Gen e ral taking into consideration the report, p a ssed a speaking order directin g the land marked in yellow colour on the enclosed plan to be released su b ject to the condition that the petitioners w o uld vacate and hand over the possession of the remaining vacant land. T herefore, the petitioner No.1Hajari was required to hand over the pos s ession of the remaining land, i ncluding the land in Khasra No.22//23/2 ( 0-4) to HUDA as a condition p recedent to the release. The final release o rder was directed to be passed only after the compliance of the above co n dition.

¶22

vii) A second writ petition being C W P No.6841 of 2014 was then filed by the present petitioners before this High Court in which they prayed for is s uance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release their house/land in view of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensatio n and Transparency in Land A c quisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred t o as “the 2013 Act”). viii) A Co-ordinate Bench observed that in case the petitioners filed a detail e d and comprehensive represen t ation before the appropriate authority wit h in a period of two months fr o m the date of the order, the same would b e decided in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order and by affording an opportunity of he a ring within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the repr e sentation. Till such time the

¶23

SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

Page 3 of 10

¶25

CWP No.1731 2 of 2025

¶26

matter was d ecided by the authority, sta t us-quo was directed to be maintained b y the parties. ix) T he authority concerned opined t hat there was no merit in the request mad e by the petitioners under Secti o n 24 of the 2013 Act. The possession o f land had already been taken b y HUDA on July 21, 2003 which could be evidenced from Rapat Roz n amcha No.583 of the same date and the s aid roznamcha issued by an in d ependent authority i.e Land Acquisition C ollector was a substantive piec e of evidence to prove change of physical p o ssession. Subsequently, the la n d in dispute was encroached upon with th e mala fide intention by the pet i tioners to take the benefit of Section 24 ( 2 ) of the 2013 Act. The petiti o ners could not provide any documentary evidence to show that they wer e in continuous possession of the land in d i spute. It was only due to the st a tus-quo order passed by the High Court, t h e encroachers/ petitioners coul d not be removed. x) T he petitioners again approach e d this Hon’ble High Court by filing C WP No. 8004 of 2017 “Hazari a n d others v. State of Haryana and others ”. T he said petition was disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench in terms of t h e judgment dated January 29, 2018 in CWP No.13425 of 2015 “Vijay P al and others v. State of Harya n a and others ”. xi) T he writ petition being CWP No.8004 of 2017 was allowed vide judgme n t dated January 29, 2018 on the ground that neither the petitioners a g reed to receive the compensa t ion amount awarded by the Land Acquis i tion Collector nor was the co m pensation amount deposited with the Ref e rence Court in accordance wit h Section 31 of the 1894 Act. Therefore, th e acquisition proceedings were set-aside.

¶27

SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

Page 4 of 10

¶29

CWP No.1731 2 of 2025

¶30

xii) T he physical possession of the a cquired land where most of the petitioners had raised structures was also held to be retained by them. Therefore, i t was decided that the im p ugned acquisition of the land/properti e s had lapsed under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. However, it w as clarified that in the event t h e State required the released land for a pu b lic purpose, it could re-acquire t he same under the 2013 Act. Furthermore, it was directed in case where p etitioners or their co-sharers had received compensation in respect of lan d , the said compensation was required to be refunded along with interest a t the statutory rate within a period of thr e e months.

¶31

xiii) T he State of Haryana preferr e d an appeal from the said judgment. T h e Hon’ble Supreme Court in SL P (C ) No.19000 of 2019 setaside the im p ugned order considering the la w laid down by the Supreme Court in “ Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal and others ” reported in ( 2020) 8 SCC 129 followed i n “ Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited and others v. M/s Honeywell International (India) Private Limited ” Civil Appeal No.2052 of 2023 date d 11.04.2023. xiv) T he impugned judgment was set-aside and the matter was remitted bac k to the High Court to be decide d on issues other than the one covering the field in Indore Development’s case (supra). The third writ petition bein g CWP No.8004 of 2017 wa s decided by a Co-ordinate Bench on F e bruary 14, 2025. The Hon’bl e Bench dismissed the writ petition alon g with costs assessed at Rs. 2 5,000/- due to the reasons reproduced h e rein under :

¶32

SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

Page 5 of 10

¶34

CWP No.1731 2 of 2025

¶35

“ xxx

¶36

1 1. The first round of litigation is embodied in writ petition b earing No.11572 of 2008 ti t led as Hazari v. State of H aryana and others, wherei n , the present petitioners u nsuccessfully claimed relief for quashing of the notifications a s became respectively issued u n der Sections 4 and 6 of the A ct of 1894. The said petitio n was disposed of with the d irection to the respondents to c arry out fresh survey at the r elevant site. In compliance th e reto, the Director General U rban Estates Department h a s passed the order dated 2 1.02.2014 (Annexure P-6) w h ereby 1273 sq. mtr. was r eleased, but with the conditio n that the present petitioners s hall vacate the remaining land including land comprised in K hasra No.22/23/2 (0-4). The s a id order supra has not been c hallenged by the petitioners. Resultantly, the said order a cquires binding and concl u sive effect, whereby, the p etitioners become stopped f r om challenging the order s upra.

¶37

1 2. The second round of litigation which became e mbarked into by the present p etitioners was in the year 2 014, through their instituting Civil Writ Petition bearing N o.6841 of 2014. Since prior t o the filing of the said writ p etition, thus, the Act of 2013 ca m e into force, whereupon the p resent petitioners claimed t h e rendition of a lapsing d eclaration in their favour. The said claim was banked upon t h e provisions embodied in Sect i on 24 (2) of the Act of 2013. H owever, the said writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file detail e d representation before the r espondent authorities through a n order made by this Court o n 22.04.2015 (Annexure P-10 ) . The petitioners have filed r epresentation before Zonal Committee, Gurugram and the s aid representation was re j ected, vide order dated 1 3.12.2016. The petitioners hav e filed instant petition before s aid order supra dated 13.12.2016 for release of land as per S ection 24 (2) of the Act of 201 3 and have further prayed for t h e q2uashing of order dated 13.12.2016.

¶38

1 3. Conspicuously, it is a l so visibly clear that the p etitioners had also raised a claim for enhancement of c ompensation as became deter m ined under the Act of 1894, t h rough their instituting throu g h the aegis of the learned L and Acquisition Collector c o ncerned, thus, a reference p etition cast under Section 18 o f the Act of 1894. Moreover, t h e award made on the said reference petition did also result i n further motion there again s t being raised and which t r avelled upto the Apex Court. T h e impact of the above is that o n one hand, the petitioners w e re claiming the application v is-à-vis them of the provisions e mbodied in Section 24 (2) of t h e Act of 2013and on the oth e r hand, they were claiming e nhancement of compensation in amount higher than the

¶39

SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶40

Page 6 of 10

¶41

CWP No.1731 2 of 2025

¶42

o nes as became awarded in t h eir favour in terms of the a ward which became rendered under the Act of 1894. The g alvanizations at the instance of the present petitioner of p arallel remedies, is but magni fa catory of the fact, that they d id not have a realistic inten t ion, as such to claim any fa vourable application vis-à- v is them of the mandate e nclosed in Section 24 (2) of t h e Act of 2013 but as stated s upra they were working o n ly at the behest of the r ealtor/developer concerned.

¶43

1 4. Even otherwise, assumin g that even if the amount of t h e compensation as became d e termined in the proceedings l a unched under the Act of 1 894 and which ultimately t r avelled upto the Apex Court, did not become received by t h e present petitioners, but the v e ry fact that they had invoked s uch a remedy, thus for enh a ncement of compensation, t h rough theirs availing the rem e dies under Section 18 of the A ct of 1894, is plainly suggesti v e that they had accepted the a ward passed under the Act o f 1894 thereby they become c ompletely stopped to subsequ e ntly invoke the remedy as e nshrined in Section 24 (2) o f the Act of 2013. Naturally t h ereby, this Court is fully co n vinced that rather than the p resent petitioners being genuin e ly aggrieved, they are being p rodded by the realtor concer n ed, thus to continue to ill- a gitate a claim which is ill-cas t under Section 24 (2) of the A ct of 2013. Furthermore, it also appears that the r ealtor/developer concerned is , prima-facie, indulging in m aintaining the instant ill-l a id motions and that too r epeatedly before this court.

¶44

1 5. Finding no merit in th e writ petition, the same is d ismissed with costs of Rs.25,00 0 /-. The said imposed cost be f orthwith deposited by the petit i oners with the Treasurer of t h e Bar Association of the Punj a b and Haryana High Court, C handigarh.

¶45

1 6. Pending applications, if a n y, also stands disposed of.”

¶46

xv) T he aforesaid order dated Feb r uary 14, 2025 was assailed before the H on’ble Supreme Court vide o rder dated April 21, 2025 wherein the Apex Court refused to interfe r e with the impugned order dated Febru a ry 14, 2025 and had only set-aside the costs assessed at Rs.25,000/-.

¶47

L earned counsel appearing o n behalf of the petitioners submits that c onsidering the provisions of S e ction 24 (2) of the 2013 Act SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 7 of 10

¶48

CWP No.1731 2 of 2025

¶49

the land of t h e petitioners acquired under t h e notifications dated August 24, 2000 an d August 22, 2001 under Sectio n s 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act, should be rel e ased from acquisition.

¶50

S ection 24 (2) of the 2013 Act is reproduced herein below:

¶51

“ Section 24- Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have l a psed in certain cases-

¶52

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition pr o ceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( 1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has b een made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land ha s not been taken or the compensation has not been pa i d the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and t he appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate t he proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordan c e with the provisions of this Act:

¶53

Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a m ajority of land holdings has not been deposit in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the n otification for acquiescence under Section 4 of the said L a nd Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provision of this Act. ”

¶54

T he judgment of the Co-ordin a te Bench dated January 29,

¶55

2018 that all o wed the writ petition under Se c tion 24 (2) of the 2013 Act has already b e en set-aside by the Supreme C o urt in view of law laid down in Indore Development’s case (supra) .

¶56

I t has been unambiguously he l d in Indore Development’s case (supra) t hat no acquisition proceedings will lapse as long as one of the limbs of S ection 24 of the 2013 Act has b een satisfied. As long as the State had deposited the compensation w ith one of the competent authorities it would be deemed as payment of compensation to the land owners. Furt h ermore, possession of the pr o perty could sufficiently be evidenced fr o m rapat roznamcha.

¶57

SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶58

Page 8 of 10

¶59

CWP No.1731 2 of 2025

¶60

I n view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on February 2 7, 2024 the Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court heard the third writ pe t ition being CWP No.8804 of 2 017, on merits afresh. The said writ pet i tion was dismissed with costs b y the Co-ordinate Bench on February 14, 2025. The said judgment was c a rried in appeal. The Hon’ble Supreme Co u rt summarily rejected the appe a l vide order dated April 21, 2025 and onl y the costs component was inter f ered with.

¶61

P etitioner No.1 along with the other petitioners despite order dated February 21, 2014 passed by the Di r ector General, Urban Estate Department, r efused to vacate and hand ov e r the peaceful possession of the land whi c h was not released by the aut h orities including the land in Khasra No.2 2 //23/2 (0-4). No appeal was fil e d by the petitioners from the said order of the Director General. Instead a fresh writ petition was filed being CWP N o.6841 of 2014, in clear abuse o f the process of law in order to circumve n t the order passed by the Director General, HUDA. Apart from petition e r No.1, no other petitioner eve n challenged the notifications dated August 24, 2000 and August 22, 2001 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 A ct or the Award dated July 21, 2003. For the first time they prayed for re l ease of their land 11 years afte r passing of the award, upon consideratio n of the objections filed under Se c tion 5-A of the 1894 Act. 9. T he petitioners had also pr a yed for enhancement of compensatio n granted by the award under S ection 18 of the 1894 Act which was u n ambiguous evidence of the fact that the Award was accepted by them. Th u s, the petitioners are clearly ba r red by the exposition of law in the judg m ent of Indore Development’s case (supra) to maintain proceedings u nder Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act.

¶62

SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶63

Page 9 of 10

¶64

CWP No.1731 2 of 2025

¶65

I n the light of the aforesaid discussion and the petitioners having not c h allenged the order of the Director General dated February 21, 2014 no w cannot seek for release of th e entire land admeasuring 07 Kanals 16 M arlas, under the aforesaid poli c ies. Non-compliance of the order dated February 21, 2014 clearly indicates that the petitioners did not act with bon a fide intent and have time an d again sought to perpetuate their illegal p ossession by blatantly showin g scant regard to the Rule of Law. Once t h e authorities have opined that t h e land is required for future development work the said decision cannot be subject matter of judicial review unles s wholly unreasonable, arbitrar y or hit by mala fide intent. No case has been made out by the petitio n ers on the aforesaid line of argument no r is there any pleading to sh o w which legal right of the petitioners h a ve been violated. Therefore, th i s Court finds no merit in the present writ p etition.

¶66

T he present writ petition is als o barred by the principles of constructive res judicata . Accordingly, C W P No.17312 of 2025, is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.25,000/-, being devoid of any merit.

¶67

C onnected applications, if any, a re also accordingly disposed of.

¶68

(DEEPAK SIBAL) (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE JUDGE JULY 17, 2025 shalini Whether Spe a king/reasoned: Y es/No Whether rep o rtable: Y es/No

¶69

SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.22 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶70

Page 10 of 10

Hajari v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hajari v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narender Vs State of Haryana and Others

Csj Infrastructure Private Limited Vs Union Territory of Chandigarh and Ors.

Patna Sahib Charitable Educational Trust Vs Income Tax Officer Exemptions Ward, Chandigarh and Others

Jai Kishan and Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Shavinder Singh Somal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sonu Alias Siya Vs State of Haryana and Others