The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of statutory provisions and legal principles governing land acquisition and release of acquired lands.

JUDGMENT :

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. The petitioners seek relief for the quashing of notifications, as became respectively issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1894’) and which become respectively enclosed in Annexure P-1 and P-2. The further relief, as asked for in the instant writ petition, relates to the quashing of the award (Annexure P-3).

2. However, since it becomes unfolded from a reading of the order made by this Court on 02.03.2022, relevant part whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, that then the learned counsel for the petitioners rather restricted his prayer to the disputed lands being released from acquisition, thus in terms of Section 101-A of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2013’):

“After going through the judgments passed by this Court in Gram Panchayat of Village Bhatola vs. State of Haryana and Others, CWP No. 28811 of 2017 (decided on 10.07.2020), Rati Ram and Another vs. State of Haryana and Others, CWP No. 6313 of 2015 (decided on 05.11.2015) and M/s. Kataria Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and Others, CWP No. 16085 of 2012 (decided on 05.11.2015), learned counsel for the petitioners gives up his claim for quashing of the notification dated 14.08.2008 (Annexure P-1) and notification dated 30.08.2008 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 followed by award dated 27.08.2010 (Annexure P-3). He restricts his prayer to release the land of the petitioners under Section 101-A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and for that purpose, two representations dated 08.09.2020 (Annexure P-8) and 29.01.2021 (Annexure P-9) have been made by the petitioners.”

3. Therefore, though this Court through an order made on July 13, 2023 had formulated the hereinafter extracted questions, for answers being rendered thereon:

“(i) Whether in the wake of acquisition proceedings, thus terminating under the Act of 1894, whether as such the provisions of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2013’) are applicable?

(ii) Whether if the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 are not applicable, then whether the provisions of Section 101-A, as occur in Act of 2013, are ipso facto fully applicable vis-a-vis the reliefs claimed in the writ petitions, especially for want of adduction of cogent evidence, but suggestive, that the imperative statutory ingredients, as expressed therein, in the coinage “When any public purpose, for which the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) becomes unviable or non-essential” thus are satisfied?”

4. Nonetheless in view of the above extracted scope of the instant writ petition, this Court would only proceed to make an answer to substantial question of law No. (i).

5. Consequently, this Court would proceed to both delve into, and, make an adjudication only in respect of the above limited relief, as asked for in the instant writ petition. In other words, this Court would only answer substantial question No. (i).

6. Though yet learned counsel for the petitioners has argued, that there is no necessity of retaining the acquired lands, and, he planks the above arguments on the ground, that the disputed lands have been subjected to commercial use, whereas, the disputed lands were initially meant for construction thereon of sectoral roads.

7. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the above raised argument, before this Court, is rudderless and is liable to be rejected. The principal reason for making the above inference stems, from the factum, that earlier also the acquisition proceedings became challenged bef