Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana with Mr. P.P.Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana and Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana; Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate with Ms. Kushaldeep K. Manchanda, Advocate and Mr. Shivam Garg, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The claim made in the instant writ petition is for a mandamus being made upon the respondents concerned, to, in terms of the policy dated 14.09.2018 (Annexure P-15) of the Haryana Government thus make the petition lands being released from acquisition, rather on theirs becoming un-essential or unviable for being used for the requisite public purpose.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has forcefully contended, by planking submissions, on the mandate of Section 101 A of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter for short refer to as the 'Act of 2013') as became incorporated in the 'Act of 2013', through Haiyana Act No. 21 of 2018, provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter, that the petition lands are un-essential or unviable for the relevant public purpose. Therefore, he has argued that the petition lands, irrespective of the earlier launched acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter for short called as the 'Act of 1894') thus becoming fully terminated, rather are un-essential or are unviable for being used for the relevant public purpose, thereby they are yet available for becoming released from acquisition.

"101 A. Power to denotify 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 denotify 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 alongwith payment of damages, if any, as determined by the State Government. "

3. Further, a prayer has been made in the writ petition for issuance of directions to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 12.09.2022 (Annexure P-16) for release of land in view of Section 101-A of the 'Act of 2013'.

4. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has planked his submission, on anvil of Section 101 A (supra) as well as, on anchor of clause 7 of the policy dated 14.09.2018 of the Haiyana Government, but yet the said submission becomes completely unhinged, in the face of a specific contention existing in paragraph No. 14 of the reply, on affidavit, as furnished to the petition by the respondent concerned, contents whereof are extracted hereinafter.

"....The land involved in the petition affects the planning of 18 mtrs and 12 mtr. wide internal road in Sector 20-B Faridabad. "

5. A reading of the said contents, does make graphic emergence(s), that the petition lands are earmarked for the apposite public purpose and thereby are utilized, or are utilizable, and or, are viable for facilitating the apposite public purpose. Consequently, the counsel for the petitioners cannot argue, that the petition lands are either un-essential or unviable for facilitating the apposite public purpose nor he can well rest any argument premised, on the provisions of Section 101 A of the 'Act of 2013' or in view of the policy dated 14.09.2018. Contrarily, post valid termination of earlier launched acquisition proceedings under the 'Act of 1894', thereupon yet the retention, if any, of the petition lands, by the petitioners, especially when they evidently sub-serve the public purpose, thus is rather completely unlawful. The reason being that the above ground premised on anvil of Section 101 A of the 'Act of 2013' or upon, policy dated 14.09.2018, is completely capricious and also is arbitrary. The reason being that the statutory ingredients therein, appertaining to unessentiality or unviability of the disputed lands, thus for facilitating the apposite public purpose, rat