Lalit Kumar vs State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2201

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2201

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURESHWAR THAKUR, KULDEEP TIWARI, JJ.
Lalit Kumar & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & Anr. – Respondents
CWP NO. 9666 of 2023
Decided On : 17-07-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate; For the Petitioners
For the Respondent: Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.

Headnote:(A) The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 101-A and 24(2) - Lands Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6 and 11 - Petitioners sought to stay dispossession from acquired lands and challenged the legality of the land acquisition on grounds of non-utilization and request for de-notification, alleging discrimination and violation of their rights. The Court held that possession after award makes the petitioners trespassers and that the concept of constructive res judicata applies, as earlier petitions were dismissed on merits. The enabling provisions for de-notification under Section 101-A do not grant vested rights to landowners for continued possession or de-notification requests. (Paras 1-19)

(B) Judicial Review - The scope of judicial review in land acquisition matters is limited to ensuring public purpose while the private interest must yield to public interest. (Paras 6-7)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners were contesting the acquisition of their lands for public development, asserting that they had not received compensation and that their lands were no longer viable for the intended purpose. The acquisition process was established under previous notifications and awards dating back to 2004.

Findings of Court:
Previous judgments established that the petitioners had no legitimate claim, as they had been in possession post-acquisition award and were deemed trespassers; thus, their repeated litigations were without merit.

Issues: Whether acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, and the parameters for judicial review and claims of discrimination in land acquisition.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court reaffirmed that once land is acquired and possession taken, challenges based on prior claims or assertions become inadmissible; the principle of res judicata applies. The Court stated, 'No landowner has a vested right to assert that the acquired lands have become unviable or non-essential mainly because the landowner continued to be in possession' (Para 11).

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek mandamus to prevent dispossession. (Para 1 , 2)
2. factual background of land acquisition and previous litigation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. legal questions framed for consideration. (Para 6 , 7)
4. principle of res judicata applicable to successive litigations. (Para 8 , 9)
5. status of petitioners likened to trespassers post-acquisition. (Para 10 , 12)
6. denotification powers of state under section 101-a. (Para 13 , 15)
7. legislative intent of section 24 and rights of landowners. (Para 14 , 16)
8. court's dismissal of the writ petition for lack of merit. (Para 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT

Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, J.

The petitioners, through the instant writ petition, seek issuance of a mandamus upon the respondent(s) concerned, inasmuch as, staying their dispossession from the petition lands, until a final decision is made on their application (Annexure P-8), as moved under Section 101 -A of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2013'), in accordance with the policy dated 14.9.2018 (Annexure P-11), titled as "The Policy for Return of Un-utilized lands', as well as, the order dated 22.07.2022 (Annexure P-13). The petitioners further seek making of a mandamus upon the respondent(s) concerned to make a final decision on their application (supra).

2. Before delving into the controversy at hand, it would be apt to record here, that through the present writ petition, the petitioners have entered into a third round of litigation, thereby seeking de-notification of their acquired lands from acquisition, proceedings whereof were terminated way back in the year 2004. As such, it is deemed imperative to first make a thorough survey of the factual backdrop of the present controversy, to conclusively give quietus to the litigation.

Factual Background

3. The lands of the petitioners, along with the lands of some similarly situated landowners, was brought to acquisition by the respondent- State, for the development and utilization of such lands as residential, transport/communication at Sectors 4 and 5, Rohtak. The acquisition of petitioners' lands was done through issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Lands Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1894') was issued on 04.01.2022, which was followed by issuance of another notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, on 31.12.2022. Thereafter, an award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 was pronounced on 29.12.2004. Subsequent to the making of the award (supra), a rapat bearing No.444 was recorded on 29.12.2004, therein depicting assumption of possession of the acquired lands, by the acquiring authority concerned.

4. The acquisition proceedings (supra) caused grievance to the predecessor(s)-in-interest of the petitioners, which led them to institute CWP-111-2005, inter alia, on the grounds of discrimination inter se the petitioners and similar thereto situated persons, besides construction of superior quality residential houses over the acquired petition lands. However, the writ petition (supra), vide order dated 06.10.2010 (Annexure P-7), met the fate of dismissal.

5. Remaining yet dissatisfied, the petitioners, through filing CWP-25045-2016, again knocked the doors of this Court, seeking de-notification of the acquired petition lands, primarily on the ground that the acquisition (supra) has become lapsed, in view of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013. The other averments made in the writ petition (supra) related to the petition lands being un-utilizable for any efficacious purpose, as the same formed only a small part of the total acquired lands, and, also related to amenability of the petition lands for getting released from acquisition, by the respondent- State. After considering the entire factual backdrop of the case, inasmuch as, assumption of lawful possession of the acquired lands by the acquiring authority concerned on 29.12