***

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) –

1. In the head note of the petition, following prayers have been made:-

“Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for an appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside the impugned order dated 2.2.2016 [Annexure P-8]; AND declaring that the impugned acquisition proceedings vide notifications issued by the respondents under Sections 4 & 6 of the 1894 Act, (Annexures P-2 & P-3) and the award dated 28.02.1996 (Annexure P-4) stand lapsed in view of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; And/Or for any other writ, order or direction as may deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that in the present case, Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1894”) was issued on 02.03.1993 and Notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 01.03.1994 for public purpose namely residential and commercial and institutional development in Sector 18, Panipat and the award had been passed on 28.02.1996. It is submitted that the petitioner did not file any objection under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 and the possession of the land in question was taken vide rapat No.209 dated 28.02.1996. It is further submitted that total compensation which was awarded to the landowners was Rs.19,29,23,257/-, out of which, total amount of Rs.18,41,89,440/- has already been disbursed to the landowners and rest of the amount of compensation is lying deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak and the same has been tendered. It is further submitted that the petitioner had filed reference under Section 18 for enhancement of the compensation with the Reference Court and thereafter, even filed RFA-4682-2001 and thereafter, further challenge was made before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that in the said circumstances, the present case is squarely covered against the petitioner by virtue of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others reported as (2020) 8 SCC 129.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the abovesaid facts would not take away the right of the petitioner to request the respondents to invoke their power under Section 101-A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred as “the 2013 Act”) and thus, the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to move a representation to the respondent authorities by invoking the provisions of Section 101-A of the 2013 Act. It is further submitted that the said aspect would still be open, even in case the petitioner gives up their challenge to the Notifications and the award. It is submitted that as per the case of the petitioner, the acquisition of the land in question is not viable and in case, the respondents decide the representation in favour of the petitioner, then, the petitioner is ready to repay the amount of compensation along with interest.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further highlighted the averments made in para 6 of the petition with respect to the acquired land measuring 650 square meters having been exchanged with a private builder. It is submitted that the petitioner would not challenge the acquisition proceedings and would be satisfied at this stage in case the respondent authorities be directed to consider and decide the abovesaid representation to be filed by the petitioner, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law, in a time bound manner.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that in case the petitioner is giving up its challenge to the notifications and the award and in case the petitioner files a representation requesting the respondent authorities to invoke the power under Section 101-A of the 2013 Act, then, the said representation would be considered and decided after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four months from the date of submission of the said representation.

6. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances and the fair stand taken on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents-State, while permitting the petitioner to withdraw the present writ petition as far as challenge to the notifications and the award is concerned, the petitioner is permitted to file a representation requesting the respondent authorities to invoke the power under Section 101-A of the 2013 Act within a period of one month from today and in case any such representation is filed, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the said representation.

7. It is made clear that the said representation would only be filed on the aspect of Section 101-A of the 2013 Act and this Court has not opined on the merits of the same and the same would be considered independently, in accordance with law.

Order accordingly.

********