JUDGMENT

G.S.Sandhawalia, J. - The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 19.01.2022 (Annexure P-10) and seeking release of the land of the petitioners situated in village Kanhai, Tehsil and District Gurugram as per the policy dated 14.09.2018 (Annexure P-9) on the ground that it cannot be utilized as per clause no.7 of the said policy. The prayer is made not to demolish the structures raised by the petitioners on the said land which is stated to be situated in Khasra No.34//22/2 in the said village and measuring 4 kanals and 17 marlas. The same is stated to be adjacent to the land of the petitioners which has been left over by the respondent- Government.

2. In the writ petition, though it has been mentioned that there was earlier litigation in the form of CWP No. 22269 of 2020, Sanjay and others v. State of Haryana and others but there is studied silence regarding the decision on merits in CWP No. 14184 of 2016 and the challenge raised to the order dated 21.03.2016 (Annexure P-11) in the said writ petition though there is an averment that SLP (C) No. 21440 of 2022 was dismissed as withdrawn on 02.12.2022. Neither the said order passed in the SLP has been attached, which rather goes on to show that the same was preferred against the writ petition, detail of which has not been mentioned.

3. Counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, has though tried to justify that there is a mistake as such and it is only the subsequent writ petition filed the same had been mentioned, which rather we feel is only an attempt to conceal facts and to delay the handing over of possession of the land which was acquired way back on 20.04.1990 (Annexure P-1) vide notification issued under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (in short 'the 1894 Act') and followed up by the notification under Section 6 of the said Act on 18.04.1991 (Annexure P-2). The land stood vested in the State with the passing of the award dated 23.03.1993 (Annexure P-3). The said notification would go on to show that the land was acquired for the purposes of development and utilization of the development plan by the erstwhile HUDA which included land from village Jharsa, Hadbast No.94; village Kanhai, Hadbast No. 73; village Bindapur, Hadbast No.93 and village Shamashpur Hadbast No.92, Tehsil and District Gurugram. The rate was fixed at Rs.3.5 lakhs per acre for chahi land for village Kanhai at that point of time and eventually compensation of Rs.12,27,47,937.60/- was assessed and the land was to vest in the ownership of the Haryana Governnment and on approval, to vest with the erstwhile HUDA and now with Haryana Sehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP).

4. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana and Mr. Karan Jindal, AAG, Haryana on account of having advance copy, has brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners challenged the said notification only on account of the fact that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short 'the 2013 Act') had come into force. Accordingly, the benefit of lapsing was sought and the plea taken was that physical possession had not been taken whereas the stand of the respondent-State was that in the form of rapat roznamcha No. 425, possession had been taken and it is a valid mode of taking possession. The compensation as such had been made available for disbursement. The co-ordinate Bench headed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice,