Disposed

Gopi Chand and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CWP/23859/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioners to withdraw their writ petition challenging land acquisition notifications and the award. The Court permitted them to file a representation under Section 101-A of the 2013 Act within one month. The respondent authorities were directed to consider this representation within four months after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to withdraw challenge to notifications and award and file representation under Section 101-A of 2013 Act within one month; Respondents directed to decide within four months.

Gopi Chand and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CWP-23859-2015 (O&M) [1]

¶2

209

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP-23859-2015 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.09.2026

¶5

Gopi Chand and others

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE DIVYA SHARMA

¶11

Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate and Mr. Divyam Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. ****

¶12

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

¶13

In the head note of the petition, following prayers have been

¶14

made:-

¶15

“CIVIL WRIT PETITION under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writs in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned Notifications dated 05.05.1997 (Annexure P-2) and 04.05.1998 (Annexure P-3) issued by respondent No.1 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide which the land of the petitioner has been acquired and the award of the same was passed on 03.05.2000 and further issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the land of the petitioners as per Section 24 (2) of the Act i.e. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

¶16

PAWAN KUMAR 2026.09.11 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶17

CWP-23859-2015 (O&M) [2]

¶18

Resettlement Act, 2013 as the petitioner is still in physical possession and no compensation has been received. AND

¶19

Further issue any other writ, order or direction to which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that in the present case, Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1894”) was issued on 05.05.1997 and Notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 04.05.1998 and the award had been passed on 03.05.2000. It is further submitted that the possession of the land in question was taken vide rapat roznamcha No.487 dated 21.07.2003. It is further pointed out that total compensation amount that was awarded in the present case was Rs.35,76,48,481/- and the entire compensation has been tendered. It is also submitted that the petitioners had filed a reference petition and further Regular First Appeal was also filed for enhancement of the compensation. It is further submitted that the present writ petition has been filed after a period of 15 years from the date of passing of the award and thus, the present case is squarely covered against the petitioners by virtue of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others reported as (2020) 8 SCC 129 as well as by this Court in case titled as “Gopal Singh Rathi and others Vs. State of Haryana and others”, passed in CWP-13333-2016, decided on 23.07.2026. .

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the

¶22

PAWAN KUMAR 2026.09.11 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶23

CWP-23859-2015 (O&M) [3]

¶24

abovesaid facts would not take away the right of the petitioners to request the respondents to invoke their power under Section 101-A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred as “the 2013 Act”) and thus, the petitioners seek to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to move a representation to the respondents-State for invoking the provisions of Section 101-A of the 2013 Act. It is submitted that the said aspect would still be open, even in case the petitioners give up their challenge to the Notifications and the award. It is further submitted that the respondent-authorities be directed to consider and decide the said representation after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, in accordance with law, in a time bound manner.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that in case the petitioners are giving up their challenge to the notifications and the award and in case they file a representation requesting the respondents-State to invoke the power under Section 101-A of the 2013 Act, then, the said representation would be considered and decided after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within a period of four months from the date of submission of the said representation.

¶26

Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances and the fair stand taken on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents-State, while permitting the petitioners to withdraw the present writ petition as far as challenge to the notifications and the award is concerned, the petitioners are permitted to file a representation requesting the respondents-State to invoke the power under Section 101-A of the 2013 Act within a period of one

¶27

PAWAN KUMAR 2026.09.11 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶28

CWP-23859-2015 (O&M) [4]

¶29

month from today and in case any such representation is filed, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the said representation.

¶30

It is made clear that the said representation would only be filed on the aspect of Section 101-A of the 2013 Act and this Court has not opined on the merits of the same and the same would be considered independently in accordance with law.

¶31