Section 101-A of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act Does Not Confer a Vested Right to Seek De-notification: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bars Fresh Challenge to Concluded Acquisition on Grounds of Constructive Res Judicata and Order II Rule 2 CPC
Case Name: M/s Lion Brand Poultries & Another v. State of Haryana & Others
Date of Judgment: 27 July 2026
Citation: CWP-22937-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhas Mehla
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging land acquisition proceedings that had already attained finality before the Supreme Court. The Court held that Section 101-A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 merely empowers the State Government to de-notify acquired land where the public purpose has become unviable or non-essential and does not create any enforceable or vested right in favour of landowners to demand de-notification. It further held that fresh grounds challenging acquisition, including alleged defects in the supplementary award, were barred by the doctrines of constructive res judicata and Order II Rule 2 CPC, since such pleas either had been or ought to have been raised in the earlier litigation that culminated before the Supreme Court. While dismissing the petition, the Court granted liberty to the petitioners to seek release of unpaid compensation before the Reference Court in accordance with law.
Summary: The petitioners challenged acquisition proceedings initiated in 1981 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 concerning approximately 11.756 acres of land situated in Gurugram. The acquisition had already survived scrutiny before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Supreme Court, and even review proceedings before the Supreme Court, which upheld the acquisition for planned urban development, including roads and public amenities. Despite the final adjudication, the petitioners later submitted a representation seeking de-notification under Section 101-A of the 2013 Act, contending that the acquired land should be released. The State rejected the representation by holding that the land continued to be essential for development and was required for residential plots, roads, parks, dispensaries and other public purposes.
Before the High Court, the petitioners additionally argued that the supplementary award relating to buildings and structures had not granted compensation for certain constructions, rendering the acquisition proceedings liable to be quashed. Rejecting the contention, the Court observed that the supplementary award specifically considered compensation for buildings, structures, tubewells and trees, and the petitioners had failed to establish the existence of any compensable construction. More importantly, if they were aggrieved by the supplementary award, the appropriate remedy was to challenge it within a reasonable time, which they never did. Since the validity of the acquisition had already been conclusively upheld by the Supreme Court, the petitioners could not reopen the controversy by introducing new grounds in a subsequent writ petition.
The Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decisions in Ram Swaroop and Raghubir Singh to reiterate that Section 101-A is merely an enabling provision conferring discretion upon the State Government to de-notify land where the public purpose becomes unviable or non-essential. It does not confer any vested or enforceable right upon landowners to seek release of acquired land. The Court further applied the doctrine of constructive res judicata, holding that litigation attains finality not only regarding issues actually decided but also matters which ought to have been raised in earlier proceedings. Referring to Order II Rule 2 CPC and Rule 32 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Rules, it held that these principles equally govern writ proceedings. Observing an increasing tendency among landowners to continue litigation even after acquisition proceedings have attained finality before the Supreme Court, the Court deprecated such repetitive challenges as obstacles to planned development. Nevertheless, it permitted the petitioners to approach the Reference Court for release of compensation allegedly lying deposited, directing that any amount found payable be released in accordance with law.
Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the acquisition proceedings had already attained finality and could not be reopened through a fresh challenge or by invoking Section 101-A of the 2013 Act. However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioners to seek release of the compensation amount before the Reference Court, Gurugram, in accordance with law.