JUDGMENT

Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, J.

Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners crave the indulgence of this Court, for issuance of a mandamus upon the respondent(s) concerned, to allot/release the lands of the petitioners, acquisition proceedings whereof were lawfully terminated in the year 1983, i.e. around 4 decades back. The relief (supra) is cast on the premise that the acquired lands fall in close proximity, i.e. within 900 meters, of the restricted area of the Ammunition Depot of the Military.

2. The instant writ petition, though is camouflaged to reap the relief (supra), however, the primary reason behind the institution of the instant writ petition, appears to be the malafide intention of the petitioners to retain their illegal possession over the acquired petition lands.

3. However, before delving into the controversy at hand, it would be apt to record here that through the instant writ petition, the petitioners have entered into a third round of litigation, thereby seeking de-notification of the petition lands, which were lawfully acquired around 4 decades back. Therefore, we deem it imperative to first trace the genesis of the controversy, vis-a-vis, the factual backdrop of the case, to conclusively give quietus to the litigation(s).

Factual Background

4. The petitioners claim themselves to be the owners of the petition lands, being successor(s)-in-interest of Yadu and Harnarain, whose demises occurred in the year 1990. The petition lands were brought to acquisition by the respondent-State, through issuance of a preliminary notification under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1894') on 6.7.1981, which was succeeded by issuance of a declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, on 25.6.1982. Thereafter, an award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894, in respect of the acquired petition lands, was pronounced on 25.3.1983, and, on the very day, the possession thereof was also assumed by the erstwhile Haryana Urban Development Authority (now Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.). The receiving of the compensation amount by the petitioners, as assessed by the Collector concerned, is an uncontested factum. Moreover, it is also apparent from record, that no challenge was laid to the acquisition proceedings (supra), until the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2013').

5. Upon coming into force of the Act of 2013, the petitioners availed the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 by instituting before this Court, a writ petition bearing No. CWP-10754-2014, titled "Ram Phal and others v. State of Haryana and others", thereby seeking quashing of the notification, declaration and award (supra). The petitioners claimed the relief (supra), on the premise, that though compensation has been received, but physical possession is yet with the petitioners, and, that they are ready and willing to refund the compensation amount along with interest. However, this Court disposed of the writ petition (supra), vide order dated 05.05.2015 (Annexure P-8), thereby reserving liberty to the petitioners to, within two months, make a detailed representation, canvassing therein all the pleas as raised in the writ petition (supra), and, also imparted directions to the respondent(s) therein, to decide such representation of the petitioners, but within a period of four months