IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Pardeep Kapoor ….Petitioner versus The State of Haryana and others …Respondents

1. The date when the judgment is reserved 06.11.2025 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 17.11.2025 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 18.11.2025

4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced

5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not judgment, and reasons thereof applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Mr. Abhinav Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Rishabh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG Haryana.

DEEPAK SIBAL, J.

1. Through the instant petition the petitioner assails the noti#ications dated 23.02.1989 and 22.02.1990 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short – the 1894 Act). Also under challenge is the award dated 21.02.1992 through which compensation was determined by the Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkula (for short – the LAC), to be paid to the land owners for their lands acquired through the aforesaid noti#ications.

THE FACTS

2. Through noti#ication dated 23.02.1989, issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, the State expressed its intention to acquire 600.42 acres of land for the development of Sectors 13-17, Panipat by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short –HUDA). After considering the report of the LAC, on the objections #iled by the land owners under Section 5A of the 1894 Act, the State noti#ied to acquire 540.16 acres of land through noti#ication dated 22.02.1990 issued under Section 6 of the 1894 Act. Thereafter, through award dated 21.02.1992, the LAC determined the compensation to be paid for 505.66 acres of the acquired land. Possession of such land was also taken by the State and handed over to HUDA on the same date through rapat No.277 dated 21.02.1992. A separate award for land measuring 20.45 acres, which was under litigation, was announced by the LAC on 17.11.1994 and possession of such land was taken by the State and handed over to HUDA on the same date vide rapat No.124 dated 17.11.1994.

3. The petitioner claims to be the owner of 02 Bighas of land situated in khasra No.3857/2, khewat No.1414, Hadbast No.12 in the revenue estate of Taraf Insar, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as the land in question). Such land was covered under both the aforesaid noti#ications and the award.

4. No objections under Section 5A of the 1894 Act were #iled in response to the noti#ication dated 23.02.1989 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act by the petitioner or any of the other co-owners.

5. Through CWP-32-2016 – Raj Kapoor and others vs. State of Haryana and others the petitioner’s co-owners challenged the acquisition of the land in question as according to them such acquisition had lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Through judgment dated 31.08.2022, a Division Bench of this Court, after considering the facts of that case and relying on the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal and others - AIR 2020 SC 1496 dismissed the said petition. Such judgment attained #inality.

6. Through the instant petition, #iled in July 2025, the petitioner has now challenged the acquisition of the land in question primarily on the ground of discrimination as according to him similarly placed lands, which are adjacent to the petitioner’s acquired land, have been released by the State and that such releases also make it impossible to utilize the petitioner’s acquired land for any public purpose.

THE SUBMISSIONS

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while drawing the attention of this Court to the site plans appended to the petition as Annexures P-8 and P-9, submitted that similarly placed lands, adjacent to the petitioner’s acquired land owned by M/s Mittal Enterprises, M/s S