Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.

The petitioner seeks quashing of notifications dated 6.1.2006 and 9.8.2006 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, "the Act") and the award dated 7.12.2006, Annexures P. 2 to 4 respectively to the extent that the land owned and possessed by her for residential purpose is adjacent to the released land and surrounded by private colonizers. Further prayer has been made for releasing the land as adjoining land has already been released vide order dated 14.5.2008, Annexure P. 8 in view of the government policy discussed in the order dated 20.11.2007 passed by this Court in CWP No. 19290 of 2006 and for declaring the acquisition proceedings to have lapsed in view of provisions of section 24(2) of the Right to Fair compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, "the 2013 Act").

2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The land in question in the present petition was the subject matter of CWP No. 19290 of 2006 (Hira Lal and another vs. State of Haryana and others). In the said writ petition, the plea of construction of the house and the same being surrounded by the private colonizers was raised. The land was situated in Mustil No. 122, Killa Nos. 22(8-0), 23/1/1(1-13) and 21 min (1-15) situated in Village Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari. Notification dated 6.1.2006 was issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act followed by notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act on 9.8.2006. The award was passed on 7.12.2006. Vide order dated 20.11.2007, the said writ petition was disposed of in view of the consideration of the claim of the petitioners in terms of the then prevailing government policy. Thereafter, the respondents passed the release order dated 14.5.2008, Annexure P. 8. The petitioner submitted an application dated 21/22.2.2011, Annexure P. 9 to respondent No. 4 to release the land in Mustil No. 122/23/1/1(1-13) by including the same in the release order dated 14.5.2008. According to the petitioner, by mistake the land falling in Killa No. 23/1/1(1-13) has neither been considered for release nor the release has been declined. Earlier the land was mutated in favour of Rohtash on 7.6.2006 (petitioner No. 2 in CWP No. 19290 of 2006) but subsequently the said Rohtash transferred the land in the name of one Hari Ram son of Umrao and mutation was entered in his name. The State Government was never recorded as owner in the revenue record. Thus on 2.6.2009 vide registered sale deed, the petitioner purchased the land in question from the said Hari Ram and the same was entered in the mutation also. According to the petitioner, the respondent authorities had already charged the development charges amounting to Rs. 10,12,920/- for the land in question. The present petitioner is subsequent purchaser. Till date, there was no dispute but suddenly Haryana Urban Development authorities started claiming their possession as the release order did not mention the land falling in Killa No. 23/1/1(1-13). Hence the instant writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the action of the respondents in not releasing the land of the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. Reference has been made to the judgments in Shanti Sports Club and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and Meera Sahni Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Others, .

4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. It is the admitted position that the land in the present case was acquired in the year 2006. The award was passed on 20.11.2007. The petitioner purchased the land in dispute on 2.6.2009 and being subsequent vendee cannot maintain his claim for release of land under the Act or 2013 Act.

6. The Apex Court following Tika Ram and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others etc. etc., (2009) 12 JT 1 : (2009) 12 SCALE 349 : (2009) 10 SCC 689 : (2009) 15 SCR 905, Meera Sahni Vs. L