Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea to Release Acquired Land; Says Petitioner Accepted 2013 Demarcation and Cannot Reopen Issue After 12 Years
Case Name: Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab & Others
Date of Judgment: 02 December 2025
Citation: CWP-10001-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Lapita Banerji
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a landowner’s petition seeking release of seven marlas from acquisition for Mohali’s IT City project, holding that the petitioner had already accepted the 2013 demarcation which released only nine marlas containing his constructed house. The Court held that he could not revive the issue after twelve years, particularly when the remaining land had since been planned and earmarked for public use, including EWS housing.
Summary: The petitioner owned sixteen marlas in Village Chao Majra, claiming his entire house stood on this land. While challenging the acquisition in 2011, the Court directed a fresh survey. In 2013, GMADA’s committee recommended release of only nine marlas containing the constructed, double-storeyed house, and this recommendation was accepted by the Court, rendering the earlier writ petition infructuous. No objection, review, or further challenge was filed by the petitioner at that time.
Years later, during contempt proceedings, GMADA reiterated that only nine marlas were built up and releasable, while the remaining seven marlas consisted of temporary sheds and open space crucial for planned EWS housing. A notification in 2023 formally released nine marlas in accordance with the 2013 recommendation. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition seeking release of the remaining land, alleging discrimination and improper demarcation.
The Court found these arguments meritless, emphasising that the petitioner had accepted the 2013 report and allowed the earlier writ petition to be disposed of without protest. It held that reopening settled issues after twelve years was impermissible, especially when the land had been incorporated into approved planning and was needed for public purposes. The Court rejected claims of discrimination, noting the petitioner had offered no factual basis.
Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as frivolous and an abuse of process. The Court held the petitioner could not repeatedly litigate an issue conclusively settled in 2013 and subsequently acted upon. Costs of ₹10,000 were imposed, to be deposited with the Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh.