Once land acquisition is complete and final, subsequent claims for partial release cannot override the earlier legal framework established under the Land Acquisition Act.

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (ORAL)

1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 30.04.2013 (Annexure P-22), whereby the claim of the petitioner for releasing balance land already acquired by the State has been rejected.

2. Undisputed facts of the case are that the land in question was compulsorily acquired pursuant to the notification issued by the State of Haryana under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘Act of 1894’) on 12.09.2001. The land was acquired for the public purpose of shifting of Dyeing Units in Sector-29, Part-II, Panipat. The notification under Section 4 of Act of 1894 was followed with a declaration issued by the State under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 on 01.03.2002. The objection made under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 by the petitioner had not found favour with the State authorities. The award pursuant to such acquired land was made by the Collector on 11.04.2002. Possession of the acquired land was also taken vide Panchnama No.408 dated 11.04.2002.

3. The petitioner had not challenged the notification issued for acquisition of land. It appears that certain other persons challenged the acquisition proceedings which failed with dismissal of their writs. Ultimately, the matter travelled to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.412/2006 in M/s Radhey Textile and others v. State of Haryana and others . The said appeal was disposed of by the Supreme Court without interfering with the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court with the observation that the claim of petitioners, therein, for release of land in terms of the Government policy be considered.

4. It transpires that armed with the observation of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid matter, the petitioners, along with various others, filed writ petitions which came to be disposed of on 28.09.2010 requiring the State Government to examine the claim of the petitioner for release of land.

5. Pursuant to such direction, a representation was made by the petitioner on 16.11.2010 for release of its land. The State Government accorded consideration to petitioner’s prayer for release of land vide order dated 28.01.2011. The State Government found that the petitioner’s Unit was situated only on a part of acquired land and consequently a decision was taken to release twice the area on which the Unit of petitioner was in existence. A release order to that extent was also passed on 09.03.2011. The decision of the State Government dated 28.01.2011 was put to challenge by the petitioner in CWP No.12152/2011 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide following orders passed on 14.07.2011:-

“After arguing for some time, counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw this writ petition with a view to approach the Government for requisite relief.

Dismissed as withdrawn, as per prayed made.”

6. In terms of the liberty, the petitioner again raised a grievance for release of balance land before the State Government vide representation dated 05.12.2011. The petitioner, thereafter, filed yet another writ petition being CWP No.11646/2012 which came to be disposed of vide following orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 06.02.2013:-

“Counsel for the petitioner states that this petition may be disposed of with direction to respondent No.1 to decide the representation dated 05.12.2011 (Annexure P-19) filed by the petitioner, which is still pending with it, in accordance with law within a period of two months.

Ordered accordingly.

Till the decision of the said representation, petitioner may not be dispossessed.”

7. It is thereafter that the claim of petitioner has been considered and rejected by the State vide detailed reasoned order contained in Annexure P-22 dated 30.04.2013.

8. Lea