Second Writ Petition Challenging Land Acquisition Not Maintainable After Withdrawal Without Liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Applies Order XXIII Rule 1, Order II Rule 2 CPC, Constructive Res Judicata and Delay & Laches

Case Name: Nirmala & Others v. State of Haryana & Others

Date of Judgment: 28 July 2026

Citation: CWP No. 18115 of 2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhas Mehla

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging land acquisition notifications and the award passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 after holding that the challenge was not maintainable. The Court ruled that where an earlier writ petition concerning the same acquisition had been withdrawn without seeking liberty to institute a fresh petition, a subsequent writ petition challenging the same acquisition is barred by Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC. The Court further held that grounds which were available but not urged in the earlier proceedings cannot subsequently be raised, as they are barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC and the doctrine of constructive res judicata, both of which apply to writ proceedings. Additionally, a challenge instituted more than two decades after the award was held to be liable to dismissal on the grounds of delay, laches and acquiescence, particularly where possession had already vested in the State and the acquisition had attained finality.

Summary: The petitioners challenged notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the award dated 25 June 2004, and a subsequent eviction notice relating to land acquired for residential, commercial and institutional development in Bahadurgarh. However, the Court found that the petitioners had previously instituted a writ petition in 2024 concerning the same acquired land, which they withdrew after arguments had commenced. Since the earlier petition was withdrawn without obtaining liberty to file a fresh petition, the Court held that the present challenge was barred under Order XXIII Rule 1(4) CPC.

The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the earlier writ merely sought release of the land and did not challenge the acquisition notifications. It observed that all the notifications and the award had already existed when the first writ petition was filed and, therefore, every challenge available to the petitioners ought to have been raised in that proceeding itself. Applying Rule 32 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Rules, 1976, the Court reiterated that the principles embodied in Order II Rule 2 CPC and constructive res judicata extend equally to writ proceedings. A litigant cannot split causes of action or reserve grounds for future litigation after consciously omitting them in earlier proceedings.

The High Court also noticed material inconsistencies between the pleadings in the two writ petitions. While the earlier petition asserted that objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act had been filed, the present petition stated exactly the opposite. This contradiction further undermined the petitioners’ case. Independently, the Court held that the writ petition suffered from gross delay and laches, having been instituted twenty-two years after the award. Relying upon earlier Division Bench decisions, including Rajesh Malik, Desraj, and the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, the Court reiterated that stale land acquisition challenges cannot be revived after possession has vested in the State and that Section 24 of the 2013 Act does not create a fresh cause of action to reopen concluded acquisition proceedings. Since possession had been taken through Rapat No. 1318 dated 25 June 2004 and compensation had been substantially disbursed or deposited for the benefit of landowners, no ground survived to interfere with the acquisition.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the challenge to the land acquisition proceedings was barred by Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, Order II Rule 2 CPC, constructive res judicata, and the doctrines of delay, laches and acquiescence, and that no ground existed to reopen acquisition proceedings concluded decades earlier.