Deepak Kumar Alias Deepak Jerath vs State Of Haryana And Others on 20 November, 2025.

Present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to de notify the land of the petitioner under Section 101 101-A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”) and for issuance of a writ in the the nature of certiorari for setting- aside the notification dated August 27, 2007 (Annexure P-4) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1894 Act”),, declaration dated August 28, 2007 (Annexure P-5) issued under Section 6 of the 1894 Act and Award No.33 dated March 28, 2008 (Annexure P-6) passed under Section 5 (1) of the 1894 Act and all consequential/incidental proceedings qua acquisition of petitioner’s land.

This case involves three connected writ petitions (CWP No.24593 of 2025, CWP No.25344 of 2025, and CWP No.25346 of 2025) heard by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, concerning the acquisition of land by the State of Haryana.

The Issue before the Court is whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to de-notify their land under Section 101-A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“the 2013 Act”), and whether the initial acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the 1894 Act”) should be set aside.

The Reasoning and Application of the Court focused on several key aspects:

  • Petitioner’s Prayer and Grounds: The petitioner (Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Jerath in the lead case) sought de-notification primarily on two grounds: (a) the urgency provision (Section 17(1) of the 1894 Act) was wrongly invoked, depriving him of the right to object under Section 5-A; and (b) the land remained unutilized for 17 years, and the petitioner claims to still be in possession, having constructed shops. (Para 2, 4, 5)
  • State’s Defence (Delay and Res Judicata): The State argued that the petition should be dismissed due to inordinate delay (17 years since the award in 2008) and because the issues raised were already litigated and withdrawn in a previous writ petition (CWP No.5392 of 2018), making the present petition hit by the principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata. (Para 8, 9)
  • Court’s Finding on Res Judicata: The Court found that the instant writ petition was “clearly hit by the principles of res judicata/constructive res judicata” because the petitioner had previously raised the same grounds (violation of Section 5-A rights and non-utilization/possession) in CWP No.5392 of 2018, which was withdrawn with liberty only to approach the authority under Section 101-A of the 2013 Act. (Para 15, 17, 19, 31) The Court extensively cited Supreme Court judgments supporting the binding nature of prior judgments, even in writ proceedings. (Para 19, 20)
  • Possession and Banda Development: The petitioner argued that possession was not legally taken because no notice was given and his signature was not obtained on the Panchnama, relying on Banda Development Authority v. Moti Lal Agarwal. The Court countered this by relying on the later judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal and others, which clarified that drawing up a Rapat Roznamcha (Memorandum of Possession) on March 28, 2008, is sufficient to constitute taking of possession, vesting the title absolutely in the State, rendering the petitioner a trespasser if he retained possession. (Para 7, 12, 13, 23, 24)
  • Right to De-notification under Section 101-A: The Court held that Section 101-A of the 2013 Act is an enabling provision granting liberty to the State to de-notify land if it becomes unviable; it does not confer a vested right upon the landowner to seek de-notification, especially when the land is essential for the public purpose (here, a vital link road and green belt for Sector-29, Pinjore). (Para 10, 25, 26)
  • Delay and Laches: The Court found the claim fatal due to inordinate delay (approaching the court 10 years after the award) and laches, citing precedents that delay cannot be condoned merely because the party was diligent in a previous, withdrawn petition or because they waited long to file the representation under Section 101-A. (Para 27, 28, 30)

The Conclusion was that the writ petitions were dismissed because they were hit by the principles of res judicata, acquiescence, and waiver, and also on the substantive interpretation of Section 101-A of the 2013 Act, given that the land was deemed essential and utilized. (Para 32)

More info on 99888-17966.