128 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 10.04.2026 Aman Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sandeep Parkash Chahar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the action of the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the ground of delay and laches vide reply dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-14). Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant appointment to the petitioner as more than 02 acres of land of petitioner’s family has been acquired by the respondents along with all other consequential and attended benefits including payment of arrears of pay.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the respondent-State of Haryana issued a notification dated 16.01.2007 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of land for setting up a thermal power project. The land of the petitioner’s family measuring more than 02 acres was also acquired. The Government of Haryana implemented a policy and granting employment to one member of the family whose 02 acres or more land was acquired. The petitioner’s father, uncle and aunt gave their affidavits on 09.08.2024 and 16.08.2024 stating that they have no objection if a job is granted to the petitioner in lieu of the acquired land as discernible from Annexures P-7 to P-9. The petitioner served a legal notice on 27.11.2025 (Annexure P-13). However, the respondents rejected the petitioner’s claim on the ground that the Special Dispensation Scheme has been closed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that 341 Class-III posts and sufficient Class-IV posts are still available for land oustees.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 5 submits that the claim of the petitioner is hopelessly time-barred and that he remained indolent for a considerable period. The policy was introduced in the year 2007 and as per his own pleadings, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appointment under the said policy only in the year 2024, after a gap of 17 years. This Court has already considered similar delayed claims by land oustees and dismissed their writ petitions, bearing CWP No.2536 of 2025 titled as Satbir Vs. HPGCL and others, CWP No.2986 of 2025 titled as Munish Kumar Vs. SoH and others, CWP No.2987 of 2025 titled as Nitish Vs. SoH and others and CWP No.3031 of 2025 titled as Raj Kumar Vs. SoH and others.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner approached the respondents seeking employment in the year 2024 in terms of the policy dated 05.07.2007 as discernible from Annexures P-7 to P-9. The petitioner remained indolent for a period of 17 years, despite another policy announcement made by the Government of Haryana in the year 2014.

5. It is trite law that the delay in approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be condoned if sufficient cause is indicated or a reasonable explanation is provided for the same. However, the facts of the matter at hand indicate otherwise. Learned counsel petitioner has failed to specify any compelling or extenuating circumstance which prevented him/her from approaching this Court for such a long time. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Others vs. Ram Gopal (2021) 13 SCC 225, wherein, the following was held:

“16. Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Ar