The main legal point established is that the entitlement to relief under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is contingent upon the timing of possession of acquired lands and the deposit of compensation, and previous decisions on similar issues have a binding effect.

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. The petitioners claim relief for the quashing of a notification (Annexure P-1), as became issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1894’), thus on 08.03.1989. The said notification became succeeded by a declaration (Annexure P-2), under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, becoming issued thus on 07.03.1990. Thereafter, an award (Annexure P-6), in terms of Section 11 of the Act of 1894, bearing No.17 became made on 22.03.1991.

2. The above launched acquisition proceedings, vis-a-vis the petition lands, were for facilitating a public purpose, namely, for the development and utilization of land for residential and commercial area Sector 9, 9-A and 10 at Gurugram.

3. The above prayer(s) become rested upon the mandate carried in 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’), whereby, on dis-affirmative satiations becoming meted by the acquiring authority qua the statutory parameters embodied therein, thus the landlooser(s) concerned, become entitled to receive a declaration, that the earlier launched acquisition proceedings under the Act of 1894, rather being pronounced to become lapsed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

4. Before proceeding to determine the legal tenacity of the above claim, as made in the instant writ petition, it is deemed pertinent to allude to the conspicuous factum qua the predecessor(s)-in-interest of the present petitioners instituting CWP-6181-1991, before this Court. The relief(s) claimed in the writ petition (supra) were almost similar to the ones, as become claimed in the instant petition. The writ petition (supra) became decided, along with CWP-3000-1991 and other connected therewith writ petitions, thus on 31.10.1991.

5. The common challenge, as became raised thereins, became comprised in the factum, that the landlooser(s) concerned were not granted any opportunity of hearing vis-a-vis their respective objections, as became filed under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. The other common ground, as became raised in the writ petition (supra), related to the factum, that the respondent(s) concerned had released from acquisition rather the constructed areas of other landowner(s) concerned, whereas, theirs not meteing an alike therewith treatment to the petitioners in the writ petition(s)(supra). Therefore, it was agitated, that thereby invidious discrimination became practiced vis-a-vis the landlooser(s) concerned by the State of Haryana.

6. It appears on a reading of the verdict, as became drawn on the writ petition (supra), that the releases from acquisition of construction(s) of other landlooser(s) concerned, who became covered by similar notification, thus arose from the latter’s construction(s) becoming raised over the acquired lands but prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, whereas, the lands of the landlooser(s) concerned, rather were vacant in contemporaneity to the issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. Moreover, it also became observed in the verdict (supra), that if any construction(s) of the landlooser(s) concerned, was in existence in contemporaneity to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, thereby the said factum became well taken into account by the respondent(s) concerned, and thus, releases of the said raised construction(s) over the acquired lands, was well made prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. Thereby it was concluded, that there was no invidious discrimination indulged into by the acquiring authority inter se the other landlooser(s) concerned vis-a-vis the petitioners in writ petition(s) (supra).

7. Insofar as the further ground, as became raised in the writ petition (supra) is concerned, and, which relates to no opportunity of hearing becoming granted to the landlooser(s) concerned, upon,