The court upheld the validity of land acquisition proceedings, emphasizing previous adjudication, statutory compliance, and the impact of delay and laches on claims against the acquisition.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The petition lands became acquired for their development and utilization as residential, commercial and institutional Sector 1, 2, 3, 5B, 5C and 6 for Panchkula Extension (Mansa Devi Complex).

2. The acquisition proceedings became launched through issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1894'), thus on 16.03.1999. The said notification became succeeded by a declaration, under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, becoming issued on 15.03.2000. Subsequently, an award, in terms of Section 11 of the Act of 1894, became announced on 09.10.2003.

3. The acquisitions, as became made under the award (supra), was in respect of lands comprised in an area of 46.10 acres. The left over lands comprised in an area of about 4.77 acres, whereon(s) existed orchard(s), was re-notified for acquisition, through a respective notification and declaration under Section 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894, becoming respectively issued, on 16.05.2007, and, on 27.03.2008. Thereafter, an award was announced on 23.03.2009. Insofar as the award relating to the remaining lands comprised in an area of 281.38 acres is concerned, the said award could not be announced, thus to ensure compliance being meted to a stay order becoming granted by this Court in various writ petitions, which also included the writ lands.

4. Be that as it may, the writ lands are enclosed in Khewat/Khatoni No.224/370, 69//32/3, and, measure 3 Kanals 0 Marlas.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued:-

(i) that since on the acquired lands exist an orchard or garden(s), therefore, the relevant policy for making releases of the acquired lands, thus facilitated the makings of release(s) of acquired lands, thereby the writ lands be released from acquisition;

(ii) that the objections under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, as became filed by the petitioner, becoming neither considered, nor becoming decided in accordance with law;

(iii) that the acquiring authority concerned releasing the lands of various influential persons, but not releasing the writ lands vis-a- vis the present petitioner, thereby the respondent-State practising invidious discrimination vis-a-vis the present petitioner;

(iv) that the award, as became announced, did not become announced within the statutorily ordained period of limitation, for its construed to be validly rendered.

CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

6. Be that as it may, one amongst the above contentions, as becomes raised in the instant writ petition, and, as relates to the respondent-State practising hostile or invidious discrimination vis-a-vis the present petitioner, and, as stems from the respondent(s) concerned rather releasing the lands of influential persons, thus similarly situated to the writ lands, whereas, it not releasing the writ lands, rather is concerned, yet the said contention is liable to be rejected.

REASONS FOR REJECTING THE ABOVE CONTENTION

7. The reasons for rejecting the above made contention(s) ensues from the relevant observation(s), as occurs in the judgment made by this Court, upon, the instant writ petition, on 10.12.2008. Through the verdict (supra), the contention (supra) rather became dispelled by this Court. More pertinently, the order of release of lands, as made to the land looser(s) concerned, who are purportedly similar to the one as in the case at hand, became quashed and set aside, through verdict (supra). Moreover, Clause (1) of the Policy Instructions dated