IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Delhi Catholic Archdiocese through its Secretary ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents

1. The date when the judgment is reserved 12.11.2025 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 02.12.2025 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded 02.12.2025

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 applicable judgment, and reasons thereof CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Umang Bansal, Advocate and Mr. Shivansh Gulati, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.

LAPITA BANERJI, J.

The prayer in the present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ of Certiorari for setting- aside of Award No.8 dated March 23, 1993 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC), Urban Estates, Gurugram. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ for Mandamus for de- notifying the land in dispute under Scheme No.45 (Annexure P-6) of Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) and for restoring the title of the petitioner by entering its name in the revenue records in place of HUDA.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

i) The petitioner is a registered society which was the owner of land ad measuring 04 kanals 04 marlas (i.e 0.52 acres or 22868 sq. ft.) in Khasra No.39/13 and 14/1 situated at village Kanhei, Tehsil and District Gurugram.

ii) The petitioner purchased the land in dispute vide registered sale deed dated June 07, 1963 from Chattar Singh, Maan Singh Pisran and Chankaur r/o village Kanhei, District Gurgaon. The sale deed was duly executed at the office of Joint Sub-Registrar, Gurgaon vide No.440 dated June 07, 1963.

iii) Pursuant to the said purchase, the name of the petitioner society through its President was entered into the revenue records vide Mutation No.1218 dated March 23, 1993 reflected in the Jamabandi for the year 2004-2005.

iv) The disputed land was acquired by the State for the proposed development of Sector-45, Gurugram by HUDA. The impugned Award No.8 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short “LAC”), Urban Estates, Gurugram, Haryana on March 23, 1993. A primary Health Care Centre and a Church had already been constructed over the disputed land at the time of acquisition of the same.

v) The petitioner filed a representation dated February 27, 2023 before respondent No.3-The Estate Officer-II, HUDA, Gurugram, to de-

notify the disputed land under Scheme No.45 floated by HUDA but the representation was not responded to.

vi) The petitioner again submitted a reminder letter dated December 04, 2023 to respondent No.3 but the prayer of petitioner went unheeded.

vii) Due to the inaction on the part of respondent authorities the petitioner has claimed that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”) as neither the physical possession of the land had been taken by the State authorities nor was any compensation paid to it.

SUBMISSIONS

3. Mr. Bansal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner society submits that no notice of the Award as required under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1894 Act”) was given to the petitioner society, resulting in lapsing of the impugned Award dated March 23, 1993. Furthermore, neither the physical possession of the disputed land was taken by the State nor was any compensation paid by the State to the petitioner.

4. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioner that the despite passage of 31 years from the date of acquisition, the public purpose for which the land had been acquired, remained unfulfilled. The land sti