Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Release of Acquired Land in Gurugram; Says Land Already Utilised for Sector Roads, Challenge Filed After 15 Years
Case Name: Pawan & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others
Date of Judgment: 01 December 2025
Citation: CWP-27190-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Lapita Banerji
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition seeking release of acquired land in Sectors 99–115, Gurugram, holding that the landowners approached the Court after an unexplained delay of fifteen years, during which the State had not only taken possession but had fully utilised the land for construction of sector roads. The Court held that the claim was legally untenable in view of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Indore Development Authority, which establishes that once possession is taken and recorded, any subsequent occupation by private persons amounts to trespass.
Summary: The petitioners sought release of their land under Haryana policies of 2018 and 2022, alleging that the State was not using the acquired land for any public purpose. The Court rejected the claim after examining the acquisition record, the award of 31 March 2010, and the Rapat Roznamcha showing possession taken on 31 October 2010. The State produced the layout plan and photographs demonstrating that the land now forms part of the road network in Sectors 99 to 115, Gurugram. The Court observed that the petitioners not only accepted compensation fifteen years earlier but also pursued enhancement proceedings, contradicting their plea of continued ownership and possession.
Relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority, the Court emphasized that once possession is taken by recording a memorandum of taking possession, the State becomes the legal possessor, and any claim of private occupation thereafter is irrelevant in law. The Court also held that Haryana’s 2018 and 2022 policies merely enable discretionary de-notification where land remains unutilised—but cannot apply where the land has already been integrated into public infrastructure.
Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that the acquisition had attained finality over a decade earlier, that the land stood fully utilised for public purpose, and that no ground existed to order release or de-notification after such inordinate delay.