Bhagwan Singh v. State Of Haryana Through Its Additional Chief Secretary
!"#!
!$% &'(
"% %& ') !
!$% &'(
! " "
#
$ !%"!" " "
% "
&
'
*+ ,-* " ."- ,-*" "- + ( ( %) ( * * %) " ( * '(%+),%- ! ( .
. %) ( ) *%) ( * + %) "
&/-*0 /// ."-0 (1) % % !* ) " # 1
! 2 ) 3 % ' ) % 4" 5 ) 6%
7 "
8
% +
, %- ! ! ' 9 '!*" ! '
(2) )" " " %"
" :/ " ; %
* " 2 ) 3 ) %< 4" 5< ) 6*"- ! =
3 <; " + , >
3 " " % * %, > ? %
' " 4 " " @ 3 ?6
" " ' " !' * $/)"< ) > %" * "< )
'!*"- ! 3 $; " %
3 > " %2 ) 3 1
% , 4" 5 2)16%
!'
" >
' 3 <>
&; * 7
"
3 > !'
" 3 " '!*
' '!2)1> '! > % A
//
1 1 & "
" "
'!* * "
< ) > 7'! "
'! + B " 1 < >
" !> " ' < ! A
// 7 7 " 1 1 &$"; ! * 46" ) 7 " 1 "
" % ? %
>+ B " 1
?
!%
<%
3 " ?
>*"- !
"+ B
<'" * 1 *2%"
'1 )
& $ ;" %
'!* 1 " " " 1 < " 1 " "
> " "* 1 % + B " 1 ? " $% > " + B !
" ? '7'!*
&;
!'
% " '!*
? 9 " '
" ' > " 3
'"
> "
7 " "+ B $ !
"
!7
!
" 3 % " ' 7
" ? >
"
> ;$%
" '!
"+ B $ ;$'" * 1
" ! " "" - " (3) Through the instant petition, the petitioners, who claim to be in actual physical possession of their acquired land, seek its release on the ground that, as on date, it cannot be utilized for any public purpose, let alone the public purpose for which it was acquired by the State. The petitioners further plead discrimination to be a ground as according to them the land acquired of similarly placed land owners has been released by the State. (4) The relief prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted because the petitioners/ their predecessors-in-interest had earlier knocked the doors of this Court through CWP No3613 of 2006 - Raghbir and another Vs. State of Haryana and others through which petition they had challenged the acquisition of their land on the ground of discrimination which plea was rejected through judgment dated 09.04.2008 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:-
!"# $
% &
()% *+ , ,$
%
%
-
! "#
$ . #
.
* /
+* .0 * .
/
.
. 1 /+' /
2 *
. *.
+ . /
0 +
( . * 3 / ' &
4 ..
'5* 6 '7
* .
.
* . + . ../ *.
+
&
4 ..
.. .
*.
+
+
. !
+/ * +'/
.
.
8 +'
/ * .'.. /
. 9 (5) The afore quoted judgment was never challenged by the petitioners/ their predecessors-in-interest and was thus allowed to attain finality. (6) The petitioners/ their predecessors-in-interest had again approached this Court through CWP No.28056 of 2017 for release of their acquired land in question and this time they had relied on Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Through judgment dated 29.01.2018, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, the aforesaid petition was allowed but when such judgment was challenged by the State of Haryana before the Supreme Court, through judgment dated 22.03.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No.4537 of 2024, the
Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench judgment dated 29.01.2018 and remitted the matter to this Court to be decided afresh. In terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court, the issues raised by the petitioners were considered afresh and rejected by a Division Bench of this Court through its judgment dated 13.02.2025. Such rejection was after the Division Bench returned specific findings to the effect that through Rapat Rojnamcha No.170 dated 22.11.2006 possession of the petitioners' acquired land had been taken by the State; the assessed compensation had been duly deposited by the State in the account of the LAC which the petitioners failed to withdraw; the land in question stood utilized for the public purpose for which it has been acquired and that the petitioners' actual physical possession on the land in question would classify them as trespassers. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 13.02.2025 reads as follows:- C; * +'
.
+ '.
:
( .
+ '+.'
+ . * ;
:
- ( +'/ .'
+
/
'*
'
.
' /
- <'<(' '
%=#' ') '-)'-(=# .* . /
> ' *
.
' * '
2 * $ ' .
& 4 ' * * +.*. * .
. .
)
' *
* ++
2 .
,
,'.
.' + * 1
?*. ! 4
!
"#$%&$'$ &('
.
2 .* 4 . .
*
3
% $ ,
,0 .' * +/ ..
+' .
.../..
+ * . '# .''
' + * .
+
*./.. +
.. * ' .
+ ' .
' * . .
. . ' */ . .+ *. 4
.'/ *. +.
* .
.' 4
' '
)!&* !$
' 4
/
' ' / * + *+
'
$'
/ 9 (7) The petitioners sought review of the afore referred judgment which was also dismissed by a Division Bench on 11.07.2025. (8) The judgment of the Division Bench dated 13.02.2025 dismissing the petitioners' petition and the order dated 11.07.2025 dismissing the petitioners' review application were never challenged any further by the petitioners and therefore, they were allowed to attain finality. (9) A reading of the above referred and quoted judgments of this Court dated 09.04.2008 and 13.02.2025 leave no room for doubt that the pleas raised by the petitioners through the instant petition for release of their land
+ on the ground that it cannot be utilized by the State for any public purpose and the issue of discrimination stands considered and authoritatively rejected. (10) In the light of the above, we find that through the instant petition the petitioners have made a frivolous attempt to re-open settled issues which cannot be permitted. Resultantly, the present petistion is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.25,000/- are directed to be '! 0 # & D% 81818 B7% * / % 1 4)
& ;8#*11 8181 6 1 ."-2 3 1- 2 .+=2
7A :E A& '
:E A&