The power of eminent domain allows the State to lawfully acquire land for public purposes, superseding individual claims of legitimate expectation, especially when justified by ecological and urban planning needs.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, J.

Since all these writ petitions arise from common acquisition proceedings, besides when common questions of law are involved therein, therefore, they are amenable for being decided through a common verdict.

2. However, since a couple of writ petitions, i.e. CWP-16-2015, CWP-443-2015, CWP-567-2015, CWP-576-2015, besides raising common grounds vis-a-vis the ones, as raised in the other writ petitions, also invoke the lapsing provisions, as embodied 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'), therefore, the claim (supra), will also become adjudicated at the fag-end of this verdict.

3. The petitioner(s), who have in fact, collaborated with a renowned builder/developer/coloniser, i.e. D.L.F., have thrown the instant challenge to the relevant acquisition proceedings.

4. To be precise, the challenge, as made in all these writ petitions, is to the notification and the declaration, as respectively issued under Section 4 and under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1894'). The notification and the declaration were respectively issued on 16.3.1999 and on 15.03.2000. In addition, a challenge is also made to the order dated 21.10.2014, as passed by the High Powered Committee, whereby, the claim(s) of the petitioner(s) for release(s) of acquired land(s), in terms of the relevant policy(ies), as adopted by the State of Haryana, was rejected.

5. The relevant acquisition proceedings remained entangled in various rounds of litigation, which commenced in the year 2001. Therefore, to gain clarity of the relevant facts, for making adjudication thereon, it is deemed imperative to extract the relevant facts. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP-23330-2014.

Factual Matrix

6. In the year 2001, one Dr. D.B.Singh filed CWP No. 876 of 2001, wherein, he raised certain grievances with regard to the activities carried out by the State of Haryana in the periphery of the Sukhna Lake and accordingly made a prayer that the State of Haryana and its authorities be restrained from doing any act of damaging the forest area abutting and/or around the Sukhna Lake. During the pendency of the above writ petition, through an order passed by this Court on 18.05.2001, further proceedings were ordered to be stayed. Thereafter, on 07.02.2003, that petition was ultimately disposed of, through the issuance of a mandamus upon the respondent(s) concerned to decide the representation(s), as preferred by the petitioner(s) therein. However, aggrieved by the conduct of the authorities concerned, Dr. D.B.Singh again filed a Writ Petition bearing No.7649 of 2003, wherein, a challenge was made to the relevant acquisition proceedings, as launched by the respondent-State, on the ground, that the same infringes the relevant provisions, as enshrined in The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, besides also violates the master plan of Chandigarh and the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the writ petition (supra), the State of Haryana took a specific plea that, in order to preserve and to protect the Sukhna Lake, the Government has framed a policy to acquire the potential area in the periphery of Shree Mata Mansa Devi Urban Complex (hereinafter referred to as the 'M.D.C.') for planned low density Urban Development (emphasis supplied) and that specific care has been exercised during the relevant acquisition proceedings, for thereby preserving the catchment area of the Sukhna Lake and its watercourses. The relevant pleadings of the State of Haryana, which were reproduced in the order passed by this Court on 11.9.2003, are extracted hereinafter:-

"i) The Government of Haryana and its authorities are also concerned to preserve and protect the "Sukhna Lake" in regard to which about 10,000 hectares of the lands have been earmarked as reserved forest in the catc