Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 8826

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Alka Sarin, Ramesh Chander Dimri, JJ
Iswar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CWP-9910-2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Gaurav Mohunta, Gaurav Gogna, Pratyush Sood
For the Respondents: Saurabh Mago, Ankur Mittal, Kushaldeep Kaur

Repeated attempts by litigants to challenge land acquisition proceedings on merits after such challenges have already attained finality through previous Supreme Court adjudications are barred by the principles of res judicata and constitute an abuse of the judicial process.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6 and 48 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2) - Repeated litigations challenging the same acquisition - Earlier challenges on merits dismissed up to the Supreme Court - Subsequent attempt to reopen the issue on the basis of alleged discrimination after failing in a previous round of litigation seeking relief under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is barred by res judicata and constitutes an abuse of the process of law. (Paras 13, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging an acquisition notification issued in 2003 and the subsequent 2006 award. This constitutes the fifth round of litigation by the petitioners regarding the same acquisition. Previous challenges on merit were dismissed by the High Court and the Supreme Court. A prior attempt to claim a lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act also failed after the Supreme Court quashed such claims.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the challenge to the acquisition on its merits had already attained finality following previous adjudications culminating in Supreme Court orders. The grounds raised regarding discrimination could have been agitated in earlier proceedings, and failing to do so bars their current consideration. The Court observed that the petitioners were misusing the legal process.

Issues: Whether the current challenge against the acquisition is barred by principles of res judicata and whether the petitioners can re-open merits of the acquisition after multiple failed rounds of prior litigation.

Ratio Decidendi: Once an acquisition has been challenged on merits and the challenge has been adjudicated up to the Supreme Court, the issue attains finality and cannot be permitted to be reopened through repeated, frivolous petitions under different guises. Raising stale claims or grounds known at the inception of the litigation is not permissible.

Result: The writ petition is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. history and background of repeated litigation regarding the land acquisition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments and counter-arguments regarding the grounds for challenging acquisition and res judicata. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. final judicial determination on the abuse of process and principle of finality. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notification dated 27.11.2003 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1894’), declaration dated 24.11.2004 (Annexure P-3) issued under Section 6 of Act of 1894 and the award dated 22.11.2006 (Annexure P-4) qua the land of the petitioners measuring 2 Kanal 14 Marla which is falling under the green belt and also for declaring the acquisition qua the remaining land to be arbitrary, discriminatory, colourable exercise of power and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. Further prayer is for release of the land measuring 2 Kanal 14 Marla.

2. Briefly the facts relevant to the present lis are that a notification was issued under Section 4 of Act of 1894 on 27.11.2003 (Annexure P-2). The acquisition was for the public purpose of the development and utilization of residential, commercial and institutional Sector-48, Gurugram which included 141.88 acres land of Village Fazilpur Jharsa including the land of the petitioners measuring 3 Kanal 4 Marla. The declaration (Annexure P-3) was issued under Section 6 of Act of 1894 on 24.11.2004 qua 132.20 acres land. Aggrieved by the same, the father of the petitioners filed a writ petition being CWP-8819-2005. In the interregnum, on 22.11.2006 the award was announced for land measuring 33.69 acres out of the originally notified land. Admittedly, during the pendency of the writ petition 10 Marla land belonging to the petitioners was released since a temple existed on the said land. Eventually on 08.08.2008 CWP-8819-2005 was dismissed by a speaking order (Annexure P-6). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein filed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) being SLP(C)-2319-2009 which was dismissed vide order dated 02.03.2012 holding as under :

‘This petition is directed against order dated 8.8.2008

passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana

High Court, whereby the petitioners’ challenge to the

acquisition of their land was dismissed.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and

carefully perused the record. In our view, the reasons

assigned by the Division Bench of the High Court for not

entertaining the petitioners’ challenge to the acquisition

proceedings are legally correct and the impugned order

does not call for interference under Article 136 of the

Constitution.

The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.’

There was another Special Leave Petition (Civil) being SLP(C)-26453-2008 which was filed by the uncle of the petitioners which was disposed off releasing 50 square yards for the purpose of playground of the school and the petitioner therein was directed to given an undertaking that he would not use the land released for any other purpose except as a playground. It was further made clear that the petitioner in SLP(C)-26453-2008 shall not lay any claim in respect of any other portion of the acquired land.

3. Still not satisfied, the petitioners filed yet another writ petition being CWP-4827-2014 which was disposed off vide order dated 29.04.2015 by granting liberty to the petitioners to file a detailed and comprehensive representation raising all the pleas as raised in the said writ petition before the appropriate authority. Since the representation was not decided, CWP-3998-2017 was preferred by the petitioners which was dismissed vide order dated 01.03.2017. However, it was observed that dismissal of the said writ petition shall not effect the rights of the petitioners to avail other appropriate remedies i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 8826

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHAlka Sarin, Ramesh Chander Dimri, JJIswar – AppellantVersusState Of Haryana – RespondentCWP-9910-2026

Repeated attempts by litigants to challenge land acquisition proceedings on merits after such challenges have already attained finality through previous Supreme Court adjudications are barred by the principles of res judicata and constitute an abuse of the judicial process.

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Alka Sarin, Ramesh Chander Dimri, JJ
Iswar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CWP-9910-2026