JUDGMENT

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)

The petitioners purchased the writ lands, post the culmination of the proceedings, under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (for short hereinafter called as the 'Act of 1894'). Therefore, prima facie, the acquisition of any right, title or interest, through registered deeds of conveyance, as became executed in favour of the present petitioners, by the vendor, but are tainted and flawed. The reason being that on culmination of acquisition proceedings, as became initiated in respect of the petition lands under the 'Act of 1894', rather thereby there is complete divestment of any right, title or interest in the petitioners'-vendors over the petition lands.

2. The writ petitioners had earlier accessed this Court for quashing of notifications for acquisition, as became respectively issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the 'Act of 1894' and which became respectively issued on 22.02.2007 and on 20.02.2008. However, the said claim, as is evident on a reading of the operative part of the order (Annexure P-11), as made on the said writ petition, to which CWP No. 16371 of 2013, became assigned, operative portion whereof is extracted hereinafter, rather became declined.

"The petitioners purchased the above stated land vide sale deed dated 26.06.2010, i.e., after issuance of Sections 4 and 6 notifications. They are said to have constructed a residential house on the plot.

Since the petitioners have purchased the subject plot after notification under Section 4, we are of the considered view that no direction for the release of their land can be issued. However, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to verify if any construction has been raised and if it does not disturb the public purpose of acquisition, their claim for the release of acquired property to the extent of constructed portion along with proportionate vacant area may be sympathetically considered. We clarify that this direction is being issued keeping in view the equitable considerations as the petitioners belong to poor section of the society, hence this order shall not be taken as a precedent."

3. Moreover, a reading of the herein above extracted portion of the order, as comprised in Annexure P-11, reveals that the petitioners espousal for the writ lands becoming released from acquisition, in terms of Section 101A of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (hereinafter for short called as the 'Act of 2013'), provisions whereof become inserted in the 'Act of 2013' through the Haryana Act No. 21 of 2018, rather also became declined.

"101A. Power to de-notify land.- When any public purpose, for which the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) becomes unviable or non-essential, the State Government shall be at liberty to de-notify such land, on such terms, as considered expedient by the State Government, including the payment of compensation on account of damages, if any, sustained by the land owner due to such acquisition:

Provided that where a part of the acquired land has been utilized or any encumbrances have been created, the landowner may be compensated by providing alternative land along with payment of damages, if any, as determined by the State Government."

4. Be that as it may, though this Court has there-ins, but on equitable considerations, thus merely rested upon an argument as then became raised before this Court, that some construction has been rai