JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J.

Petitioners seeks a declaration that the notification dated 15.11.2002 (Annexure P-3) issued under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (for short, the 'Act') followed by the Section 6 notification dated 12.11.2003 (Annexure P-4) along with the award No.2 dated 18.11.2005 passed under Section 11 , has become unviable and non-essential. Resultantly, the claim is for de-notification of the land in question in terms of the provisions of Section 101A of the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement (Haryana Amendment) Act, 2013 (for short the 2013 Act') and the policy framed dated 14.09.2018.

2. Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Raghubir Singh & another v. State of Haryana & others, 2021 (3) RCR (Civil) 533 to submit that landowner has a right to approach the State Government for exercising its powers under Section 101A of the 2013 Act and pray it to de-notify the acquired land on such terms and conditions as may be expedient in public interest. It is therefore submitted that a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the State to do the needful.

3. We have heard Senior Counsel and are of the considered opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances and on account of the repeated litigation which has not been decided in favour of the petitioners, the relief as claimed cannot be granted.

4. A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that petitioner No.1 who claims to be the owner of 12 marlas of land situated in Village Begampur Khatola is represented through a General Power of Attorney, petitioner No.2. The allegations are that mutation was done in favour of petitioner No.1 on 04.01.1995 as per Jamabandi 2003-04. Further averment is that petitioner No.1 had constructed upon the said land an industrial shed of 2400 sq.feet and thereafter on 22.03.2004, entered into a rent agreement with petitioner No.2 who is a tenant and is stated to be in occupation of the said premises and running the concern namely M/s Arya Industrial Corporation. Apparently, the said rent agreement has been entered into after the Section 4 notification which has finally culminated into an award dated 18.11.2005 (Annexure P-5) and compensation was also assessed accordingly.

5. Nothing has been averred that at any point of time petitioner No.1 had raised any objection regarding the construction raised on the said land and neither any material has been placed on record showing passing of any building plans or any proof apart from the photographs (Annexure P-2) which cannot conclusively establish as to when the construction was raised. Rather the interest of petitioner No.2 has only been created after the Section 4 notification and thus, he can seek no right. Apparently, petitioner No.1 is settled in USA and the tenant is having the General Power of Attorney for pursuing the litigation for the land which already stood notified for acquisition. The General Power of Attorney which has been appended also does not show any reference to such agreement of tenancy and rather gives the authorization to the attorney to manage and control the said property and to make correspondence with DHBVNL, civil supplies, water supplies, electricity etc. for transfer/sale of the property and the averment is that petitioner No.1 is the owner in possession which is contradictory to the averments made in the writ petition itself. The said attorney has only been executed on 26.12.2014.

6. Apart from the above contradictory stand and the lack of locus standi of petitioner No.2, it is to be noticed that the said