The court emphasized that the opinion of the State Government regarding the viability or essentiality of the acquired land cannot be disputed by the landowner without proper grounds.

ORDER

Ritu Bahri, J. (Oral). - Petitioners are seeking quashing of the order dated 12.11.2021 (Annexure P-17) passed by the Principal Secretary, Town and Country Planning-cum-Principal Secretary, Urban Estate Department, whereby representation made by the petitioners under Section 101-A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 2013 Act'), has been dismissed. Further prayer has been made for quashing of the notification dated 24.08.2000 (Annexure P-9) issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Award dated 21.07.2003 (Annexure P-12).

2. On 18.02.2022, when this case was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners had sought time to get necessary information, whether the plot of the petitioners was surrounded by other plots, which were carved out in Sector 57, Gurugram.

3. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners has informed that the earlier writ petitions i.e. CWP-13332-2007 and CWP-11330-2007, challenging the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were dismissed by this Court on 28.10.2013. A perusal of the said judgment shows that the petitioner(s) (in those petitions) had challenged the notification on two counts. The first ground was that the land was being acquired for residential purpose and the petitioners/builder had already requested for grant of CLU for that very purpose and secondly, the acquisition had been made without application of mind and the plea that the acquired land would be used for by carving out residential plots was an after thought plea taken at the time of filing of the written statement. The said petitions were dismissed by observing that the land had been acquired for multiple purposes like commercial, residential and institutional. 2953 plots were planned and floated for allotment, but due to non-availability of land, Haryana Urban Development Authority had not been able to offer plots to 236 allottees. It was further observed that the petitioner/builder had purchased the land on 16.12.2003 i.e. after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, on 09.06.2003. Since the land had been acquired for public purpose and after floating out the plots, offer could not be made to 236 allottees, the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were upheld.

4. Larned State counsel states that the petitioner had challenged the acquisition by filing CWP-13735-2004, titled as "Amar Singh vs. State of Haryana, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated18.07.2005 by directing the HPC to decide his representation. However, the claim was rejected by the High Powered Committee on 29.05.2007 on the ground that the application had been submitted by the petitioner for setting up of commercial colony. There was no representation for relase of residential structures, which showed that the land in question was not being used for residential activity. Another ground for rejection was that the land was under acquisition and the licence was applied for after acquisition. The order rejecting the claim of the petitioner was challenged thereafter, in CWP-11330-2007 and the said petition was dismissed vide order dated 28.10.2013 by observing that the land in question was acquired by the State for public purpose.

5. Now, this Court is to examine the order dated 12.11.2021 (Annexure P-17), which has been passed on the representation for release of land under Section 101-A of the 2013 Act. A perusal of this order shows that petitioner-Kishan Chand and others had made a representation for release of their land under Section 24 (2) of 2013 Act and vide speaking order dated 24.07.2017, Chairman, Zonal Committee-cum-Zonal Administrator, HSVP, Gurugram, rejected the case for release of land. The above said order was challenged by the petitioners by filing CWP-20037-2017. This petition was decided in favour of HSVP. Against that order, the