JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sandhawalia J.

The prayer in the present writ petition, filed by the six petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for seeking release of the acquired land on the strength of the Policy dated 14.09.2018 (Annexure P-10) issued under Section 101-A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act of 2013').

2. The petitioners are owners of the land bearing khasra No.33//20 (5-8), 33//21 (3-0) as share-holders in village Kanhai District Gurugram (for short 'the land in question'). The land in question was sought to be acquired by the State vide notification dated 20.04.1990 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act of 1894') and subsequent notification dated 18.04.1991 (Annexure P-3) under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. Apparently, the Award was also passed on 23.03.1993 (Annexure P-4) whereby the land of the petitioners was sought to be acquired for the public purposes, i.e residential, commercial and institutional area and recreational zone and open space in Sectors 44, 45 and 46 at Gurgaon and the land stood vested in the State under Section 16 of the Act of 1894. The claim of the petitioners is that they did not receive any compensation and they are in physical possession of the land in question. The petitioners had constructed the residential houses and shops in the land in question prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 (Annexure P-2) of the Act of 1894 and they are residing in the said residential houses. On merits, efforts have been made to build up the case on the ground of discrimination without having challenged the acquisition on merits initiated way back in 1993 and the vesting of the land in the State under Section 16 of the Act of 1894.

3. It has been mentioned in the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 that the petitioners did not file objections under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 and the land, at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, was found to be vacant, therefore, the same was recommended for acquisition. It has further been averred that the compensation of the entire acquired land was Rs.12,27,47,937.60/- had been tendered at the time of announcement of the Award. A sum of Rs.11,20,50,371.55/- had already been collected by the majority of the landowners and only compensation Rs.1,06,97,566/- has not been taken by the landowners including the petitioners and the compensation amount of Rs.1,95,022/- has already been sent to the ADJ Court under Section 31(1) of the Act of 1894. The physical possession of the land had been taken vide Rapat Roznamcha No.425 dated 23.03.1993 and the same was handed over to Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP). Therefore, the acquisition proceedings stands completed for all intents and purposes and the land stands vested in the beneficiary department, i.e HSVP.

4. The essentiality and viability aspect has been repelled by making common averments by the State in its reply and the same reads as under:-

'15. That it is respectfully submitted that in the case in hand, the land surrounding the land in question is acquired land and is in the possession of the answering respondent. The land involved in the petition affects the planning of Institution State. This clearly shows that the land in question has been duly planned and is very much essential for achieving the public purpose for which the land was acquired. True copy of the layout plan is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1 for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.'

5. We have also examined the layout plan (Annexure R-1) in question which would go on to show that the location of the land is very much suitable for the institutional site. It is also pertinent to notice that on earlier occasion, the petitioners had filed CWP No.24003 of 2016 titled as Udey Singh and Others vs. State of Haryana & Othe