Sukhbir Singh vs State Of Haryana - 2025 Supreme(P&H) 1388

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(P&H) 1388

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
SURESHWAR THAKUR, VIKAS SURI
Sukhbir Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. P.P.Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana and Mr. Karan Jindal, Asstt. A.G., Haryana. Mr. Pravindra Singh Chauhan, Advocate Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Chabbra, Advocate Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate and Ms. Saanvi Singla, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Through the instant petition, the petitioners pray for the hereinafter extracted reliefs.

Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus of direction to release the houses/land of the petitioners under the Section 24(2) of new Act namely The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and further praying for setting aside the impugned notification dated 24.5.2018 (Annexure P-12).

2. The above espoused writ claims become founded upon the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act of 2013'), whereunders the petitioners becomes empowered to claim the making of a lapsing declaration.

3. The present petitioners would be entitled to the espoused writ relief(s), as relates to this Court, thus declaring rather lapsed the extantly drawn acquisition proceedings, but only when the provisions embodied in Section 24(2) of the 'Act of 2013', become proved to become breached by the respondents. However, for the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document