Vinod Goyal vs State Of Haryana - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 1945

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 1945

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
SURESHWAR THAKUR, LALIT BATRA
Vinod Goyal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent

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 releva