Khushhal And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Ors

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1 CWP-21126-2021
RESERVED ON: 15.10.2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 31.10.2026
UPLOADED ON: 31.10.2026
KHUSHHAL AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
2 CWP-10494-2023
SUBHASH CHANDER -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
3 CWP-10585-2022
JAI BHAGWAN -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
4 CWP-10587-2022
SAHAB SINGH AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
5 CWP-10591-2022
AMIT KUMAR AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
6 CWP-10605-2022
POOJA DEVI -PETITIONER
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 2
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
7 CWP-11057-2022
JAGBIR SINGH -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
8 CWP-11764-2023
RANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
9 CWP-12001-2023
RANJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
10 CWP-12154-2022
KIRAN BALA -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
11 CWP-12445-2022
RAJPAL ALIAS RAJPAL MALIK -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
12 CWP-12469-2023
RATTAN SINGH AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 3
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
13 CWP-16813-2022 (O&M)
JAGDEV -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
14 CWP-17378-2022
JAGDISH -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
15 CWP-1836-2024
DHARM PARKASH AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
16 CWP-18452-2025
SURESH CHANDER AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
17 CWP-19040-2022
NANDLAL -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
18 CWP-17670-2022
DUGAR SINGH -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 4
19 CWP-19120-2022
NANDLAL -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
20 CWP-19124-2022
SATISH KUMAR -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
21 CWP-1913-2024
RAJESH YADAV -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
22 CWP-19400-2022
RAVINDER AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
23 CWP-19522-2022
VIJAY SINGH -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
24 CWP-19526-2022
LAKSHMI NARAYAN -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
25 CWP-19540-2022
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 5
RAMESHWAR DASS GUPTA & OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
26 CWP-19556-2022
VINOD KUMAR -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
27 CWP-19695-2022
AMIT GUPTA -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
28 CWP-1970-2022
MANJEET AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
29 CWP-19703-2022
JAI BHAGWAN -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
30 CWP-20058-2022
JAGDISH AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
31 CWP-20186-2022
SHAMSHER SINGH AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 6
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
32 CWP-2039-2024
RAVINDER YADAV -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
33 CWP-20531-2025
MANMOHAN NATH AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
34 CWP-20546-2024
JAGAT SINGH -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
35 CWP-2065-2025
PRITI PAL SINGH -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
36 CWP-2078-2025
PRITI PAL SINGH -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
37 CWP-2085-2024
SURESH KUMAR -PETITIONER
V/S
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 7
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
38 CWP-2140-2024
DINESH KUMAR AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
39 CWP-21658-2025
KARAMPAL SINGH -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
40 CWP-21697-2025
BALWAN AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
41 CWP-22222-2022
JAI SINGH AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
42 CWP-22679-2023
SATISH -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
43 CWP-22871-2022
NARESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 8
44 CWP-24223-2022
JAI SINGH -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
45 CWP-24292-2022
VIRENDER ALIAS VIRENDER SINGH -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
46 CWP-24376-2022
RAMOTAR AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
47 CWP-24446-2021
PARVEEN SANGWAN AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
48 CWP-24463-2022
RAJBIR SINGH -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
49 CWP-24704-2022
JAI PRAKASH (DECEASED) THR. LRS -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
50 CWP-24719-2022
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 9
HARISH CHANDER AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
51 CWP-24889-2022
RAMOTAR AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
52 CWP-24986-2023
RANDHIR SINGH DESWAL AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
53 CWP-25018-2023
OM PARKASH -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
54 CWP-25424-2023
CHANDER SINGH AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
55 CWP-25947-2022
HARIOM AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
56 CWP-26050-2021
JITENDER AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 10
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
57 CWP-26288-2022
PRITI PAL SINGH -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
58 CWP-26362-2021
BALWAN AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
59 CWP-26505-2023
ASGAR -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
60 CWP-26800-2021
OMBIR AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
61 CWP-27286-2022
NANDLAL -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
62 CWP-27836-2024
MANOJ DEVI AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 11
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
63 CWP-27858-2024
SURESH KUMAR -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
64 CWP-27901-2024
RAKESH KUMAR -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
65 CWP-27945-2024
PYARE LAL -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
66 CWP-27959-2024
GHISA RAM AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
67 CWP-27979-2024
PYARE LAL AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
68 CWP-27986-2024
KANWAR SINGH AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 12
69 CWP-27997-2024
KANWAR SINGH AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
70 CWP-28000-2024
RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
71 CWP-28000-2022
RAJINDER SINGH MALIK AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
72 CWP-29935-2022
JAGDISH CHANDER -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
73 CWP-3650-2025
ATMA RAM AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
74 CWP-37291-2025
SOHAN PAL -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
75 CWP-4031-2026
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 13
MUKESH KUMAR -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
76 CWP-4040-2024
SURENDER SINGH -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
77 CWP-4589-2025
SANTRA DEVI ALIAS SANTARA -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
78 CWP-5336-2023
SUGAN CHAND -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
79 CWP-5362-2023
ROHTASH AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
80 CWP-5661-2026
SHYAM LAL AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
81 CWP-5689-2022
SAGAR RANA -PETITIONER
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 14
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
82 CWP-5759-2024
BALJEET SINGH AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
83 CWP-6139-2023
BIMLA -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
84 CWP-6158-2025
BALBEER SINGH -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
85 CWP-6231-2023
DILBAG -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
86 CWP-6239-2023
RAM NIWAS -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
87 CWP-6278-2025
AMAN -PETITIONER
V/S
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 15
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
88 CWP-6309-2023
KALI RAM -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
89 CWP-6316-2023
MOTI RAM AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
90 CWP-6338-2023
SATYAVIR SINGH -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
91 CWP-6350-2023
SATISH AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
92 CWP-6426-2023
RAM PAL AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
93 CWP-6433-2023
DEEPAK -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 16
94 CWP-6456-2023
BALBIR AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
95 CWP-6533-2023
KITAB AHLAWAT -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
96 CWP-6539-2023
DEEPAK -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
97 CWP-6586-2023
KRISHAN KUMAR AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
98 CWP-6589-2023
BALRAJ SINGH AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
99 CWP-6593-2023
ANKIT AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
100 CWP-6594-2023
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 17
ANIL KUMAR AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
101 CWP-6791-2023
JAIPAL SINGH -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
102 CWP-6978-2025
KIRAN PAL AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
103 CWP-7229-2022
HARI SINGH AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
104 CWP-7606-2022
MOHINDER SINGH AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
105 CWP-7939-2022
KALI RAM -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
106 CWP-817-2026
ATTAR SINGH -PETITIONERS
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 18
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
107 CWP-8589-2024
RAVINDER YADAV AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
108 CWP-870-2026
MANJEET -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
109 CWP-8896-2024
SANTOKH SINGH AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
110 CWP-9301-2025
RAM KUMAR -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
111 CWP-9885-2022
PARGAT SINGH AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
112 CWP-32618-2025
SANDEEP -PETITIONER
V/S
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 19
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
113 CWP-28663-2026
KHAJAAN -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate, and
Ms. Ajay K. Yadav, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-21126-2021,
CWP-24446-2021, CWP-12445-2022, CWP-19400-2022,
CWP-24292-2022, CWP-26050-2021, CWP-24986-2023
and CWP-4040-2024).
Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-19522-2022,
CWP-24463-2022, CWP-24719-2022 and
CWP-24709-2022).
Mr. Anubhav Siwach, Advocate
for Mr. Balraj Gujjar, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-5759-2024, CWP-5362-2023,
CWP-32618-2025).
Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Advocate
for Ms. Sonia G. Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CWP-11057-2022).
Mr. Narender S. Tewatia, Advocate
for the petitioners (in CWP-6978-2025).
Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CWP-5689-2022).
Mr. Neeraj Yadav, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CWP-29935-2022).
Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CWP-20546-2025).
Mr. Naveen Singh Thakur, Advocate
for Mr. Jagmohan Ghumman, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-4589-2025 and
CWP-25018-2023).
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 20
Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. R.P. Daaria, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-24223-2022,
CWP-24376-2022, CWP-24889-2022 & CWP-22222-2022).
Mr. Vishal Yadav, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-16813-2022).
Mr. Sagar Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-20531-2025).
Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-8896-2024).
Mr. Surinder Dagar, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-37291-2025, CWP-5661-2026,
CWP-817-2026, CWP-21126-2021 and CWP-28663-2026).
Mr. B.K. Bagri, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-8589-2024).
Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate, and
Ms. Prakriti Kashyap, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-1836-2024).
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate, and
Ms. Neha, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-1913-2024, CWP-2039-2024,
CWP-2085-2024 and CWP-2140-2024).
Mr. Prashant Singh Chauhan, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-20058-2022, CWP-4031-2026
and CWP-22871-2022).
Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-22679-2023).
Mr. Ketan Antil, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-18452-2025, CWP-6278-2025,
CWP-9301-2025, CWP-21658-2025 and CWP-21697-2025).
Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate, and
Mr. Lokesh Sharma, Advocate, and
Mr. Pradeep Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-6139-2023, CWP-6231-2023,
CWP-6309-2023, CWP-6316-2023, CWP-6338-2023,
CWP-6350-2023, CWP-6456-2023, CWP-6533-2023,
CWP-6426-2023, CWP-6239-2023, CWP-6539-2023,
CWP-6586-2023, CWP-6589-2023, CWP-6593-2023,
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 21
CWP-6594-2023, CWP-6791-2023, CWP-6158-2025
and CWP-3650-2025).
Mr. Sukhdev Singh, Advocate, and
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-26505-2023 and
CWP-17670-2022).
Mr. Vinay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-2065-2025, CWP-2078-2025
and CWP-26288-2022).
Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, and
Mr. Ishnoor Singh, Advocate, and
Mr. Divyam Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Sukhdev Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-7939-2022, CWP-10585-2022,
CWP-10591-2022, CWP-10605-2022, CWP-12154-2022,
CWP-19040-2022, CWP-19120-2022, CWP-19124-2022,
CWP-19526-2022, CWP-19556-2022, CWP-19695-2022,
CWP-19703-2022, CWP-20186-2022 & CWP-27286-2022.
Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-1970-2022 and
CWP-26800-2021).
Mr. Shivansh Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-26362-2021).
Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-27836-2024,
CWP-27858-2024, CWP-27901-2024, CWP-27945-2024,
CWP-27959-2024, CWP-27979-2024, CWP-27986-2024,
CWP-27997-2024 & CWP-28000-2024).
Mr. Ashok K. Sharma (Bhana), Advocate, and
Ms. Suman Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-7229-2022, CWP-7606-2022,
CWP-19540-2022, CWP-9885-2022, CWP-10587-2022,
CWP-25947-2022, CWP-28000-2022, CWP-5336-2023,
CWP-10494-2023, CWP-11764-2023, CWP-12001-2023
and CWP-12469-2023).
Mr. S.S. Verma, Advocate, and
Mr. Rahul Gahlian, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-870-2026).
Mr. Yashpal Kumar, Advocate, and
Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, Advocate
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 22
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-17378-2022)
Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G., Haryana, and
Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
*
KULDEEP TIWARI, J.
1. The present batch of writ petitions is amenable to being
decided through a common verdict, inasmuch as the petitioners have
ventilated a common grievance therein, thus engendering a common
question of law warranting adjudication by this Court.
2. The writ petitions call in question the legality and validity of
the letters dated 23.10.2019 and 19.04.2021, issued by the Additional
Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management,
Government of Haryana. The former letter contained clarificatory
instructions to the effect that no other additional benefits under the
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as
the “R&R Policy”) or Section 31 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2013”), are admissible in
respect of awards made with effect from 01.01.2014 and thereafter, as per
Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013. Vide the latter letter, directions were
issued to all the Divisional Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners-
cum-Registrars in the State to conduct a special audit, through the Stamp
Auditors in each district, for the preceding three financial years, i.e. 2018-
2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, with a view to detecting any loss of
stamp duty and registration fees in respect of transactions involving
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 23
landowners whose land had been acquired under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1894”), and who had
been awarded compensation under the Act of 2013, and, consequently,
initiating suo motu proceedings under Section 47-A(3) of the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the “Stamp Act”).
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. It is deemed apt to commence by setting out the concise yet
significant factual backdrop germane to the adjudication of the
controversy at hand. The Government of Haryana, upon approval by the
Council of Ministers, notified the R&R Policy on 09.11.2010, vide a
Gazette Notification. This revised policy, inter alia , included the
introduction of a new scheme of “No Litigation Incentive”, revised rates
of annuity and a number of additional benefits for landowners whose land
is acquired by the Government under the Statute. Clause 13 of the R&R
Policy provides for exemption from payment of stamp duty and
registration charges in respect of purchase of alternate agricultural land. In
terms of the said clause, where a landowner, whose land has been
acquired, purchases alternate agricultural land within the State of Haryana
within a period of two years from the date of the award, such purchase,
limited to the amount of compensation, is exempt from payment of stamp
duty and registration charges. The Notification dated 09.11.2010,
wherefrom the R&R Policy derives its legal force, as also Clause 13
thereof, which forms the subject matter of the present controversy, are
extracted hereinafter:-
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 24
“ Notification
th
The 9 November, 2010
No.3212-R-5-2010/12140- In super-session of this Department
th
Memo. No. 1298-R-5-2007/4174, dated the 6 April, 2007 and the
th
Notification bearing No.5451-R-V-2007/13258 dated 7
December 2007, the Governor of Haryana is pleased to notify a
comprehensive revised policy laying down the floor rates in
different parts of the State of acquisition of land under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 or any other corresponding statute on the
subject. The revised policy, inter alia, includes introduction of a
new Scheme of ‘No Litigation incentive’, revised rates of Annuity
and a number of additional benefits for the landowners whose
land is acquired by the Government under the Statute.
2. The policy, of which the details are given in Annexure-A, has
been concurred by the Finance Department vide their U.O No.
1/17/09-4FG-11/2362, dated 09.11.2010 and approved by the
Council of Minister in its meeting held on 09.11.2010. This policy
will take effect from 07.09.2010.
NARESH GULATI,
Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary
to Government of Haryana,
Revenue and Disaster Management Department”
*
“13. Exemption from Stamp Duty & Registration Charges of
purchase of alternate agricultural land
In case a landowner, whose land is acquired, purchases alternate
agricultural land within the State of Haryana within a period of
two years of the Award, such purchase of land, limited to the
amount of compensation, would be exempt form payment of
Stamp Duty and Registration charges. The Revenue & Disaster
Management Department would separately issue necessary
orders/notification to this effect.”
4. To give effect to the policy decision ( supra ), the competent
statutory authority, in exercise of the powers conferred under the
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 25
Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the “Registration Act”),
as well as the Stamp Act, issued two statutory notifications, both dated
03.01.2011. By virtue of the first notification, issued in exercise of the
powers conferred under Sections 78 and 79 of the Registration Act, a
proviso was added to Article 1 of the Table of Registration Fees in
Appendix 1 to the Haryana Registration Manual, thereby exempting from
payment of registration fee the sale deeds executed by farmers whose land
has been acquired by the Government of Haryana for a public purpose and
who purchase agricultural land within the State of Haryana within a
period of two years from the date of receipt of compensation for the
acquired land, subject to the conditions enumerated therein. In a similar
fashion, by virtue of the second notification, issued in exercise of the
powers conferred under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the
Stamp Act, the duty payable in respect of such sale deeds was remitted
with effect from 07.09.2010, subject to the conditions stipulated therein.
The relevant portions of both the statutory notifications are extracted
hereinafter:-
“ HARYANA GOVERNMENT
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
Order
rd
The 3 January, 2011
No. S.O. 1/C.A. 16/1908/S. 78 and 79/2011.-In exercise of the
powers conferred by section 78 and 79 of the Registration Act,
1908 (Central Act 16 of 1908), the Governor of Haryana hereby,
directs that the following proviso shall be added to Article 1 of
the Table of the Registration Fee in Appendix 1 to the Haryana
Registration Manual,-
(i) in the proviso existing at the end, for the sign “.”, the sign “:”
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 26
shall be substituted; and
(ii) The following proviso shall be added, namely:-
“Provided further that no registration fee shall be
chargeable in respect of the sale deeds to be got executed
by the farmers whose land is acquired by Haryana
Government, for public purpose and who purchase
agricultural land in the Haryana State within a period of
two years of the amount of compensation received by them
for the acquired land, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The remittance shall be limited to the compensation
amount including interest accrued thereon on account of
delayed payment of compensation only and the additional
amount involved for the purchase of agriculture land shall
be liable to stamp duty as per rules;
(ii) Such farmers shall obtain a certificate from the Land
Acquisition Collector concerned regarding acquisition of
their land by Government and the amount of compensation
being paid to them and produce the same before the
registering authority while getting the sale deed registered
in respect of the agricultural land.”
*
“ HARYANA GOVERNMENT
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
Order
rd
The 3 January, 2011
No. S.O. 2/C.A. 2/1899/S. 9/2011.-In exercise of the powers
conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 9 of the India
Stamp Act, 1889 (Central Act 2 of 1899) and in suppression of
Haryana Government, Revenue Department, Order No. S.O.
th
80/C.A. 2/1899/S. 9/95, dated the 14 August, 1995, the Governor
th
of Haryana hereby remits, with effect from the 7 September,
2010, the duty in respect of the sale deeds to be got executed by
the farmers whose land is acquired by Haryana Government, for
public purpose and who purchase agricultural land in the
Haryana State within a period of two years of the amount of
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 27
compensation received by them for the acquired land, subject to
the following conditions:-
(i) The remittance shall be limited to the compensation amount
including interest accrued thereon on account of delayed payment
of compensation only and the additional amount involved for the
purchase of agriculture land shall be liable to stamp duty as per
rules;
(ii) Such farmers shall obtain a certificate from the Land
Acquisition Collector concerned regarding acquisition of their
land by Government and the amount of compensation being paid
to them and produce the same before the registering authority
while getting the sale deed registered in respect of the
agricultural land.”
5. Both the statutory notifications ( supra ) confer an entitlement
upon eligible persons to exemption from the payment of stamp duty and
registration fee. Pursuant to the R&R Policy, the competent revenue
authorities issued formal exemption certificates in favour of persons
whose land had been acquired under the Act of 1894. The displaced
farmers thereafter purchased agricultural land within a period of two years
and, on the strength of the exemption certificates, were granted exemption
from the payment of stamp duty and registration fee. Thereafter, the Act
of 2013 came into force with effect from 01.01.2014 and, by virtue of
Section 114 thereof, the Act of 1894 stood repealed. Following the repeal
of the Act of 1894, the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Revenue and Disaster Management, Government of Haryana, issued the
impugned letters containing clarificatory instructions and directions, as
noticed in paragraph 2 of this verdict. The relevant portions of the
impugned letters read as under:-
“Memo No.12171-CFMS-R-5-2019/11334
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 28
Chandigarh dated the 23.10.2019
XX XX XX
Subject: Applicability of provisions of Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Policy, 2010 in cases where Award announced on or
after 01.01.2014 and statutory proceedings under Section 4 & 6
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were initiated well before the
said date- clarification thereof.
---
On the subject cited above, it is amply clear that under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, state Government notified policy vide
th
notification no.3212-R-5-2010/12140, dated 9 November 2010
for Rehabilitation and Resettlement of those Landowners, whose
land was acquired, by way of providing annuity scheme, allotment
of residential/commercial/industrial sites or employment in
Group-C or Group-D categories and exemption from stamp duty
on purchase of alternate agricultural land etc. Now, in the Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (RFCTLARR Act), 2013,
enforced w.e.f. 01.01.2014, it is made clear in section 24(1)(a)
that in cases where award under section 11 of the erstwhile Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been made though proceedings
under section 4 & 6 of the said Act were initiated before
01.01.2014; all the provisions from sections 26 to 30 of the
RFCTLARR Act, 2013 shall apply regarding determination of
compensation. Consequently, the said total compensation may
vary from two times to four times of the market value of land
including structures thereon, if any.
In the light of above, it is, therefore, clarified that in cases,
where statutory proceedings under sections 4 and 6 for the
acquisition under the Act of 1894 were initiated well before the
said date i.e. 01.01.2014 and enhanced compensation
given/admissible, as mentioned above, no other additional
benefits of R&R Policy dated 09.11.2010 or section 31 of
RFCTLARR Act, 2013, is admissible in awards made w.e.f.
01.01.2014 and thereafter, as per section 24(1)(a) of the
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 29
RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
A copy of the same is also available on the website of
Revenue & Disaster Management Department, i.e.
www.revenueharyana.gov.in
It is, requested to get the said clarification brought to the
knowledge of all concerned for strict compliance.
Sd/-
Under Secretary Revenue (LR)
for Additional Chief Secretary and Financial Commissioner to
Govt., Haryana, Revenue and Disaster Management
Department.”
*
“Memo No. 615-STR-1-2021/2538
Dated: 19.04.2021
XX XX XX
It is directed that the instruction under reference regarding
implementation of RR Policy under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 by
which the exemption of stamp duty and registration fees was
withdrawn where the award was declared after 01.01.2014. The
said exemption of stamp duty and registration fees has been
withdrawn from 01.01.2014. The State Government has suffered
loss of stamp duty and registration fees due to irregular grant of
exemption of stamp duty and registration fees to the purchaser of
agriculture land out of the compensation amount received by
them during the last three years from 2018-19, 2019-20 and
2020-21. A special audit may be conducted through the Stamp
Auditor under your control to detect such type of cases of loss of
stamp duty and registration fees within a period of 15 days during
the Stamp Auditor may be directed to submit his audit report with
deficiency of stamp duty and registration fees to the District
Registrar who shall make a reference to the Collector for taking
suo-moto action under section 47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act,
1899 Collectors under intimation to Government.
XX XX XX
Sd/-
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 30
Under Secretary Revenue (STR)
for Financial Commissioner & Additional Chief Secretary to
Govt., Haryana, Revenue and Disaster Management
Department.”
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
advanced their respective submissions, with the principal arguments being
addressed by Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate. Broadly speaking, the
submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners may be encapsulated
under three heads.
7. The first and foremost submission was that the R&R Policy
possesses a statutory character and cannot be nullified by the Additional
Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management,
Government of Haryana, by issuing the impugned letters containing
clarificatory instructions and directions.
8. The second limb of the submissions was that the statutory
notifications dated 03.01.2011 were issued in exercise of the powers
conferred under the statute and have neither been withdrawn nor amended
under the relevant statutory provisions. The said notifications, therefore,
continue to hold the field, and the impugned clarificatory instructions
cannot prevail over the statutory notifications.
9. The third and final submission was that, in pursuance of the
benefit extended to the farmers and on the strength of the exemption
certificates issued by the competent revenue authorities in furtherance of
the assurance held out by the State Government, the farmers purchased
agricultural land and executed sale deeds without payment of stamp duty
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 31
and registration fee. Therefore, the said benefit cannot now be withdrawn
with retrospective effect by way of the impugned clarificatory
instructions.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED STATE COUNSEL
10. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners were
stoutly controverted by Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G., Haryana, and
Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Addl. A.G., Haryana, who jointly advanced arguments
on behalf of the respondent-State. A separate written statement was also
filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 (in CWP-21126-2021).
11. It was argued that the impugned letters are merely
clarificatory in nature and contain instructions specifying the applicability
of the provisions of the R&R Policy in cases where awards have been
passed after the commencement of the Act of 2013. Since the Act of 1894
stood repealed by virtue of Section 114 of the Act of 2013, all rules,
instructions and policies, if any, issued under the repealed enactment also
stood automatically repealed. Accordingly, the impugned letters merely
clarify the position in this regard and are in consonance with Section
24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013, which provides that, in cases where an award
under Section 11 of the erstwhile Act of 1894 has not been made,
although proceedings under Sections 4 and 6 of the said Act were initiated
before 01.01.2014, the provisions of Sections 26 to 30 of the Act of 2013
shall apply for the determination of compensation.
12. It was further argued that the R&R Policy was notified to
grant additional benefits to landowners whose land was compulsorily
acquired. However, the Act of 2013 contains a complete Chapter V
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 32
relating to the rehabilitation and resettlement award, which contemplates
the passing of two awards, i.e. an award for rehabilitation and resettlement
and an award for compensation.
13. Learned State counsel also sought to impress upon this Court
that the total compensation payable under the Act of 2013 shall be twice
the market value in the case of urban land, whereas in the case of rural
land, it may vary from 2.5 to 4 times the market value, depending upon
the distance from the outer limits of the urban areas. Therefore, the Act of
2013 is a comprehensive enactment, providing for fair compensation over
and above the market value of the land, along with rehabilitation and
resettlement of the affected landowners. Consequently, upon the coming
into force of the Act of 2013, the R&R Policy, which had been issued
only for the benefit of landowners whose land was compulsorily acquired
under the Act of 1894, under which the statutory scheme was less
accommodative in respect of compensation and rehabilitation, stood
automatically repealed.
ANALYSIS OF THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CONCLUSION
THEREON
14. Having considered the rival contentions and upon a studied
survey of the material on record, it is deemed imperative to first examine the
legal character of the governing instruments, viz . the R&R Policy, the
statutory notifications dated 03.01.2011 and the impugned letters containing
clarificatory instructions and directions.
15. The central legal question is whether the R&R Policy derives
its legal force from the Act of 1894 or constitutes an independent executive
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 33
policy granting additional benefits to landowners whose land was
compulsorily acquired under the Act of 1894. This distinction assumes
significance, as it determines the source of the right, the enforceability of the
benefits and the consequences flowing from the repeal of the Act of 1894.
16. The preamble to the R&R Policy recognises that the
compensation payable under the Act of 1894 may not be adequate and the
alienation of landowners from their source of livelihood could be a
painful process, notwithstanding the payment of compensation in
accordance with law. With a view to ensuring that the landloser farmers
continue to engage in agricultural activities and invest in alternate
agricultural land within the State of Haryana, thereby enabling them to re-
establish their means of livelihood and continue with their agricultural
profession, the R&R Policy was formulated. The R&R Policy, in fact,
introduced “certain additional benefits over and above the one-time
compensation paid in accordance with law, so as to provide for alternate
means of sustenance for the landowners and other landless
persons/artisans dependent on the agricultural land being acquired for
non-agricultural purposes”. The preamble, strategy and approach of the
R&R Policy are extracted verbatim hereinafter, whereas its objects and
salient features are culled out as under:-
“A. Preamble :
As a welfare state, the Government of Haryana recognises that
acquisition of land under the statute and the alienation of
landowners from their source of livelihood could be a painful
process, notwithstanding the payment of compensation for the
same as per law. Therefore it intends to minimise this pain of the
affected persons through a set of policy initiatives that include (a)
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 34
payment of market value as compensation of land to the
landowners with the revision and fine-tuning of minimum floor
rates in respect of land situated in different parts of the state; (b)
introduction of a special incentive for reducing litigation qua the
compensation amount; (c) revision of the rates of Annuity payable
for a period of 33 years as a social security benefit for the
landowners; and (d) review and introduction of certain additional
benefits over and above the one-time compensation paid in
accordance with the law so as to provide for alternate means of
sustenance for the landowners and other landless
persons/artisans who are dependent on the agricultural land
being acquired for non-agricultural purposes.
B. Strategy and Approach:
The objectives set out in the preamble of this Policy are
sought to be achieved through the following approach:
1. Undertake revision of the minimum floor rates of land as
th
contained in the Notification dated 6 April 2007 for different
parts of the state, and further fine-tune the same with introduction
of a larger number of categories;
2. Introduction of a ‘No Litigation Incentive’ for such of the
landowners who opt to accept the compensation award with a
view to containing litigation on this account;
3. Revision of the basic rates of ‘Annuity’ and the annual increase
to make it more meaningful as a means of social security for the
landowners;
4. Recognising two broad categories of infrastructure projects for
acquisition of land and treatment of benefits to the landowners
based on the feasibility thereof;
5. Making arrangements for professional advice to the
landowners for prudent investment of the compensation amount
with various options;
6. Addressing the concerns of such landless persons and artisans
in a village community whose source of livelihood is dependent
upon the agricultural operations in respect of the acquired land.”
*
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 35
“Objects and Salient Features:
(a) To compensate farm landowners, beyond the ordinary
compensation payable for the acquisition. This was an attempt by
the policy makers to have an additional assistance beyond
compensation already provided in Land Acquisition Act.
(b) To further reinforce farm landowners to invest in alternative
agricultural land within the state, and keep pursuing farming, for
economic and financial continuity of the State as well as the one
being compensated.
(c) To reduce transaction cost, the burden of stamp duty and
registration fee, when using the compensation amount to
purchase alternative farm land.
(d) To help landowners re-establish their livelihoods after State
sanctioned compulsory acquisition.”
17. The aforesaid provisions strongly support the interpretation
that the benefits under the R&R Policy were intended to supplement the
statutory compensation rather than constitute a part of the compensation
mechanism under the Act of 1894. The Policy provides for additional
benefits, viz. revision of floor rates of land for determining compensation;
introduction of incentive for “No Litigation”; revision of rates and
features of the annuity scheme; allotment of residential plots in cases
where a self-occupied residential house is acquired for unavoidable
reasons; categorisation of land acquisition cases; allotment of
commercial/industrial sites; and exemption from stamp duty and
registration charges in respect of the purchase of alternate agricultural
land.
18. Upon a minute examination of the R&R Policy, this Court is
unable to discern that it derives its statutory force from the Act of 1894.
The Act of 1894 and the R&R Policy operate in distinct fields. While the
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 36
statutory framework of the Act of 1894 governed compulsory acquisition
of land and the payment of compensation therefor, the R&R Policy was
formulated in view of the inadequate rehabilitation contemplated under
the Act of 1894 and prescribes additional benefits for eligible landowners,
subject to the terms and conditions stipulated therein. Even if the Policy
was notified through a Gazette notification upon approval by the Cabinet,
no statutory presumption arises that it was issued under the Act of 1894.
Consequently, the repeal of the Act of 1894 by virtue of Section 114 of
the Act of 2013 would not, ipso facto , nullify the executive R&R Policy.
19. The turn now comes to analyse the legal character of the
statutory notifications dated 03.01.2011. It is significant to note that
Clause 13 of the R&R Policy expressly recognised that an administrative
policy alone could not alter the statutory liability to pay stamp duty, and
stated that the Revenue and Disaster Management Department would
separately issue necessary orders/notifications to grant exemption from
stamp duty. The State Government subsequently gave effect to this
requirement by issuing the Gazette notifications dated 03.01.2011.
Reiteratively, by virtue of the first notification, issued in exercise of the
powers conferred under Sections 78 and 79 of the Registration Act, a
proviso was added to Article 1 of the Table of Registration Fees in
Appendix 1 to the Haryana Registration Manual, thereby exempting from
payment of registration fee the sale deeds executed by farmers whose land
has been acquired by the Government of Haryana for a public purpose and
who purchase agricultural land within the State of Haryana within a
period of two years from the date of receipt of compensation for the
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 37
acquired land, subject to the conditions enumerated therein. Likewise, by
virtue of the second notification, issued in exercise of the powers
conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Stamp Act,
the duty payable in respect of such sale deeds was remitted with effect
from 07.09.2010, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. The said
statutory notifications established the following conditions for claiming
the exemption.
“(i) The beneficiary must be a farmer whose land was acquired
by the Haryana Government for a public purpose.
(ii) The farmer must purchase alternate agricultural land within
the State of Haryana within two years of receiving compensation.
(iii) The stamp duty remittance is capped at the amount of
compensation received, including statutory interest for delayed
payment, with any excess purchase value subject to standard
stamp duty.
(iv) The farmer must obtain an official certificate from the
concerned Land Acquisition Collector confirming the land
acquisition and compensation amount, and present this certificate
to the registering authority during deed execution.”
20. In the event the aforesaid conditions are fulfilled, the
landowner shall be entitled to exemption from the payment of stamp duty
as well as registration charges. It is also crucial to note that the competent
statutory authority has, thus far, neither amended nor withdrawn the
relaxation enshrined in the statutory notifications dated 03.01.2011.
Consequently, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the said
statutory notifications continue to hold the field and retain their legal
force.
21. The question that now falls for consideration is whether the
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 38
efficacy of the statutory notifications ( supra ) can be nullified by the
issuance of the impugned letters, which are clarificatory in nature. For this
purpose, it is necessary to understand the legal character of the impugned
letters.
22. There is no dispute that the impugned letters were not issued
under any statutory provision. The impugned administrative letters suffer
from several constitutional and executive infirmities. First of all, the
letters were neither framed nor issued in the name of the Governor of
Haryana, thereby failing to satisfy the mandatory constitutional
requirement under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. Article 166(1)
mandates that all executive action of the Government of a State shall be
expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor. It is a foundational
canon of administrative law, codified under Section 21 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897, and reinforced by Article 166 of the Constitution, that
an executive decision formulated by the Council of Ministers and
published in Gazette notification can only be amended, modified, or
rescinded through an act of equal legal solemnity. A benefit created by a
Cabinet decision and promulgated through an Official Gazette notification
cannot be curtailed, diluted, or wiped away by an administrative memo or
departmental clarification issued under the signature of Additional Chief
Secretary. If the State Government seeks to roll back or alter the remit so
granted, it must do so strictly by amending or rescinding the parent policy
itself through a fresh Cabinet decision and corresponding Gazette
notification. In the absence of such a formal statutory rollback, the
impugned letters remain legally ineffective, and incapable of overriding
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 39
the statutory notifications dated 03.01.2011.
23. Another aspect is that the impugned letters were also not
published in the Haryana Government Gazette, which is a statutory
prerequisite for any order modifying the rules framed under Section 9 of
the Stamp Act or Sections 78 and 79 of the Registration Act. Crucially,
the impugned letters neither cite nor invoke any statutory rule-making
authority. Instead, they function as internal executive directives, issuing
administrative instructions to the field officers.
24. The executive power is co-extensive with legislative
competence, but remains subordinate to statutory law. Where a field is
unoccupied by statute, the executive may issue administrative
instructions. However, once a statutory notification has been issued under
a legislative enactment, as in the instant case by invoking the appropriate
provisions of the Stamp Act and the Registration Act, the executive
cannot alter or override such statutory notification through an
administrative letter (purportedly clarificatory in nature). In view of the
doctrine of executive subservience, all executive instructions must remain
subservient to statutory rules and delegated legislation. The impugned
executive letters, issued in exercise of administrative powers, cannot
restrict the rights created under the statutory notifications.
25. The central fallacy in the contention of the State lies in its
fundamental misconstruction of the legal source and character of the
benefits conferred under the R&R Policy. The fiscal remissions,
specifically the exemption from stamp duty and registration fees upon the
purchase of alternate agricultural land, do not draw their legal efficacy
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 40
from the procedural provisions of the Act of 1894 or the Act of 2013. The
land acquisition statutes operate merely as the factual trigger and
condition precedent for identifying eligible displaced landowners. The
substantive legal authority conferring these exemptions stems
independently from Section 9(1)(a) of the Stamp Act, and Sections 78 and
79 of the Registration Act.
26. There is yet another angle from which the legality and
validity of the impugned letters requires examination. By exercising the
powers conferred under Section 9 of the Stamp Act, one of the statutory
notifications dated 03.01.2011 was issued, whereby the duty was remitted.
In order to adjudicate the question as to whether Section 9 of the Stamp
Act empowers the State Government to withdraw such remission
retrospectively, it is imperative to examine sub-section (1) of Section 9,
which is extracted hereunder:-
“ 9. Power to reduce, remit or compound duties. –
(1) The Government may, by rule or order published in the
Official Gazette,
(a) reduce or remit, whether prospectively or retrospectively, in
the whole or any part of the territories under its administration,
the duties with which any instruments or any particular class of
instruments, or any of the instruments belonging to such class, or
any instruments when executed by or in favour of any particular
class of persons, or by or in favour of any members of such class,
are chargeable,
Proviso applicable to Punjab & Haryana
Provided that with respect to instruments which are
chargeable with duty under Schedule I-A, [[Schedule 1-B]
and Schedule 1-C] such reduction or remission may, by
notification be granted by the State Government, and
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 41
(b) provide for the composition or consolidation of duties of
policies of insurance and in the case of issues by any
incorporated company or other body corporate or of transfers
(where there is a single transferee, whether incorporated or not)
of debentures, bonds or other marketable securities.”
27. A perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that it does not
expressly empower the State Government to withdraw an existing
remission retrospectively. The power to grant retrospective remission is
not equivalent to the power to withdraw an existing remission
retrospectively. There is no dispute that the State Government possesses
the power to rescind a remission already granted by resorting to the
appropriate legal mechanism, however, such power does not
automatically include the power to rescind it retrospectively. Any
decision withdrawing a remission takes effect from the date of its
notification. Consequently, the impugned letters, giving power for
retrospective withdrawal of the remission, are beyond the scope of
Section 9 of the Stamp Act.
28. In “Union of India and others vs. M/s G.S. Chatha Rice
Mills and another”, 2021(2) SCC 209, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that executive circulars cannot operate retrospectively so as to impose
fiscal burdens or alter vested rights. The relevant paragraphs are extracted
hereunder:-
64. Parliament and the state legislatures are entrusted with the
power to enact legislation under Articles 245 and 246 of the
Constitution. Parliament and the state legislatures possess the
plenary power to enact legislation, with prospective and
retrospective effect, subject to due observance of constitutional
requirements. A notification issued by the government pursuant to
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 42
the conferment of statutory power is distinct from an act of the
legislature. Administrative notifications, even when they are
issued in pursuance of an enabling statutory framework, are
subject to the statute. Delegated legislation does not lose its
character even when it has the same force and effect as if it is
contained in the statute. This is a settled position of law. In a
decision which was rendered in 1961 by a Constitution Bench of
this Court in Chief Inspector of Mines v. Lala Karam Chand
Thapar, AIR 1961 Supreme Court 838, the principle of law was
formulated in the following terms:
"20. The true position appears to be that the rules and
regulations do not lose their character as rules and
regulations, even though they are to be of the same effect
as if contained in the Act. They continue to be rules
subordinate to the Act, and though for certain purposes,
including the purpose of construction, they are to be
treated as if contained in the Act, their true nature as
subordinate rule is not lost ."
In K I Shepard v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 431, a two judge
Bench of this Court held that the power to frame a scheme under
section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act 1949 was not legislative
in character but an administrative function. This Court observed:
"9 .But is the scheme-making process legislative? Power
has been conferred on the RBI in certain situations to take
steps for applying to the Central Government for an order
of moratorium and during the period of moratorium to
propose either reconstruction or amalgamation of the
banking company. A scheme for the purposes contemplated
has to be framed by RBI and placed before the Central
Government for sanction. Power has been vested in the
Central Government in terms of what is ordinarily known
as a Henry VIII clause for making orders for removal of
difficulties. Section 45(11) requires that copies of the
schemes as also such orders made by the Central
Government are to be placed before both Houses of
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 43
Parliament. We do not think this requirement makes the
exercise in regard to schemes a legislative process."
The above decision was distinguished in New Bank of India
Employees' Union v. Union of India, (1996) 8 SCC 407 ["New
Bank of India"] where the court held that a scheme framed under
Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of
Undertakings) Act 1980 stands on a distinct footing of being a
legislative and not an administrative function. The court held that
the question was not of much relevance in view of its conclusions
on the main issues presented for decision. Yet, it considered the
question and laid emphasis on the authority entrusted to
Parliament to consider, within 30 days, to agree/modify/arrive at
any decision with regards to the scheme, only thereafter was the
scheme was to have effect. These requirements, qualitatively
distinguished from a requirement of mere `laying' under section
45 of the Banking Regulation Act 1949, were pivotal in the court's
view that a scheme under the 1980 Act has a legislative
character. Mr Natraj sought to emphasize a similar argument, by
placing reliance on the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of
Section 7 which are made applicable by reason of sub-section (2)
of section 8A. However, in the absence of a sine qua non for
parliamentary sanction before the notification is enforceable, the
decision of New Bank of India provides little anchor. For the
purpose of the present decision the point which needs emphasis is
that in empowering the Central Government to exercise power
under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act, Parliament has not
either expressly or by necessary implication indicated that a
notification once issued will have force and effect anterior in
time. The provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 7 of the
Customs Tariff Act bring to bear legislative oversight and
supervision over the power which is entrusted to the Central
Government under Section 8A. That however does not lead to the
inference that a notification under Section 8A has retrospective
effect. Plainly, a notification enhancing the rate of duty under
Section 8A has prospective effect.
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 44
A rule framed by the delegate of the legislature does not have
retrospective effect unless the statutory provision under which it
is framed allows retrospectivity either by the use of specific words
to that effect or by necessary implication. In Hukum Chand v.
Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 601, a three judge Bench of this
Court held that:
"8 .The extent and amplitude of the rule-making power
would depend upon and be governed by the language of
the section. If a particular rule were not to fall within the
ambit and purview of the section, the Central Government
in such an event would have no power to make that rule.
Likewise, if there was nothing in the language of Section
40 to empower the Central Government either expressly or
by necessary implication, to make a rule retroactively, the
Central Government would be acting in excess of its power
if it gave retrospective effect to any rule. The underlying
principle is that unlike Sovereign Legislature which has
power to enact laws with retrospective operation, authority
vested with the power of making subordinate legislation
has to act within the limits of its power and cannot
transgress the same. The initial difference between
subordinate legislation and the statute laws lies in the fact
that a subordinate law-making body is bound by the terms
of its delegated or derived authority and that Court of law,
as a general rule, will not give effect to the rules, thus
made, unless satisfied that all the conditions precedent to
the validity of the rules have been fulfilled." (emphasis
supplied)
65. The distinction between the plenary power which is entrusted
to Parliament and the state legislatures to enact legislation with
both prospective and retrospective effect, and the power entrusted
to a delegate of the legislature to frame subordinate legislation
has been maintained in a consistent line of precedent of this
Court. In Regional Transport Officer, Chittoor v. Associated
Transport Madras (P), (1980) 4 SCC 597, Justice V.R. Krishna
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 45
Iyer speaking for a two judge Bench of this Court with his
characteristic eloquence observed:
"4. The legislature has no doubt a plenary power in the
matter of enactment of statutes and can itself make
retrospective laws subject, of course, to the constitutional
limitations. But it is trite law that a delegate cannot
exercise the same power unless there is special conferment
thereof to be spelled out from the express words of the
delegation or by compelling implication. In the present
case the power under Section 4(1) does not indicate either
alternative ."
The Court held that the fact that the rules had been framed in
pursuance of a resolution passed by the legislature or that they
have to be placed on the table of the legislative body would not
lead to an inference that the legislature had authorized the
framing of subordinate legislation with retrospective effect:
"4 .The mere fact that the rules framed had to be placed on
the table of the legislature was not enough, in the absence
of a wider power in the section, to enable the State
Government to make retrospective rules. The whole
purpose of laying on the table of the legislature the rules
framed by the State Government is different and the effect
of any one of the three alternative modes of so placing the
rules has been explained by this Court in Hukam Chand v.
Union of India [(1972) 2 SCC 601, 606 : (1973) 1 SCR
896, 902]."
This precisely is the principle which applies in construing
whether the power which is conferred by Section 8A of the
Customs Tariff Act is retrospective. The provisions of sub-sections
(3) and (4) of Section 7, which are made applicable by sub-
section (2) of Section 8A, are to ensure Parliamentary oversight.
But that does not enable the Central Government to exercise the
power under section 8A with retrospective effect.
In Federation of Indian Minerals Industries v. Union of India,
(2017) 16 SCC 186, a three judge Bench of this Court formulated
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 46
the principles on the subject. Justice Madan B Lokur observed
that the power to frame subordinate legislation is not
retrospective unless it is authorized expressly or by necessary
implication by the parent statute. The Court observed:
"26 .The relevant principles are:
(i) The Central Government or the State Government (or
any other authority) cannot make a subordinate legislation
having retrospective effect unless the parent statute,
expressly or by necessary implication, authorises it to do
so. [Hukam Chand v. Union of India [Hukam Chand v.
Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 601] and Mahabir Vegetable
Oils (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana [Mahabir Vegetable Oils
(P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2006) 3 SCC 620].
(ii) Delegated legislation is ordinarily prospective in
nature and a right or a liability created for the first time
cannot be given retrospective effect. (Panchi Devi v. State
of Rajasthan [Panchi Devi v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2
SCC 589 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 408] )
(iii) As regards a subordinate legislation concerning a
fiscal statute, it would not be proper to hold that in the
absence of an express provision a delegated authority can
impose a tax or a fee. There is no scope or any room for
intendment in respect of a compulsory exaction from a
citizen. [Ahmedabad Urban Dev. Authority v.
Sharadkumar Jayantikumar Pasawalla [Ahmedabad
Urban Dev. Authority v. Sharadkumar Jayantikumar
Pasawalla, (1992) 3 SCC 285] and State of Rajasthan v.
Basant Agrotech (India) Ltd. [State of Rajasthan v. Basant
Agrotech (India) Ltd., (2013) 15 SCC 1]"
The judgment of Justice Dipak Misra (as he then was) speaking
for a two judge Bench decision in State of Rajasthan v. Basant
Agrotech (India) Ltd., (2013) 15 SCC 1 adopts the same
position.”
29. Even Section 47-A(3) of the Stamp Act, as relied upon by
learned State counsel, does not empower the statutory authority to
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 47
retrospectively withdraw the remittance of duty. This provision operates
in a totally different field. It enables the Collector to, suo motu or on
receipt of reference from the Inspector-General of Registration or the
Registrar of concerned district, call for and examine the instrument for the
purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of its market value and
the duty payable thereon, but within the time limit of three years from the
date of its registration. It does not confer any power to the authority
concerned to retrospectively withdraw the already granted remittance. The
Collector, under this provision, has to ascertain the market value or the
duty payable on the date when the instrument was registered. Therefore,
the reliance upon Section 47-A(3) is highly misplaced.
30. Finally, this Court proceeds to examine the last submission
advanced on behalf of the petitioners. The landowners whose land was
acquired under the Act of 1894 and who were granted compensation
under the Act of 2013 relied upon the statutory notifications dated
03.01.2011 and the exemption certificates issued by the competent
revenue authorities, and accordingly altered their financial position by
reinvesting the compensation amount in agricultural land. Had the
impugned letters been in force at the relevant time, the landowners could
have evaluated alternative asset classes for the purpose of investment.
31. The doctrine of legitimate expectation affords protection
against retrospective impairment of rights. This doctrine, derived from
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, protects citizens against arbitrary
changes in executive policy that impair vested rights. While the State
retains the authority to alter its stamp duty policy prospectively in the
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 48
public interest, it cannot apply such policy changes retrospectively so as
to penalise citizens who completed transactions under the earlier statutory
regime. In the present cases, the sale deeds were executed and registered
between the years 2014 and 2021, with the stamp duty remitted under
valid exemption certificates. The transactions having been fully
completed, vested legal rights came into existence. The impugned letters
seek to introduce into the statutory notifications dated 03.01.2011 a
restriction which does not exist in the text of the said notifications. The
impugned administrative letters cannot operate retrospectively so as to
impose fresh financial liabilities or invalidate executed statutory
exemptions.
32. It is an established principle of administrative law that
delegated rules and executive circulars operate prospectively, unless the
enabling primary statute expressly authorises retrospective rule-making.
Neither the Stamp Act nor the Registration Act confers retrospective
circular-making authority on the executive. Gainful reference in this
regard can be made to “The Income Tax Officer vs. M.C. Ponnoose and
others”, 1970 AIR Supreme Court 385, relevant paragraphs whereof read
as under:-
“5. Now it is open to a sovereign legislature to enact laws which
have retrospective operation. Even when the Parliament enacts
retrospective laws such laws are-in the words of Willes, J. in
Phillips v. Eyre, (1870)40 LJ QB 28 at p. 37-"no doubt prima
facie of questionable policy, and contrary to the general principle
that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be
regulated ought, when introduced for the first time, to deal with
future acts, and ought not to change the character of past
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 49
transactions carried on upon the faith of the then existing law."
The courts will not, therefore, ascribed retrospectively to new
laws affecting rights unless by express words or necessary
implication it appears that such was the intention of the
legislature. The Parliament can delegate its legislative power
within the recognised limits. Where any rule or regulation is
made by any person or authority to whom such powers have been
delegated by the legislature it may or may not be possible to make
the same so as to give retrospective operation. It will depend on
the language employed in the statutory provision which may in
express terms or by necessary implication empower the authority
concerned to make a rule or regulation with retrospective effect.
But where no such language is to be found it has been held by the
Courts that the person or authority exercising subordinate
legislative functions cannot make a rule, regulation or bye-law
which can operate with retrospective effect : (See Subba Rao J.,
in Dr. Indramani Pyarelal Gupta v. W.R. Nathu, (1963)1 SCR 721
the majority not having expressed any different opinion on the
point; Modi Food Products Ltd. v. Commr. of Sales Tax, U.P.,
AIR 1956 Allahabad 35; India Sugar Refineries Ltd. v. State of
Mysore, AIR 1960 Mysore 326 and General S. Shivdev Singh v.
State of Punjab, (1959)61 Pun LR 514).”
FINAL ORDER
33. As a consequence of the foregoing discussion, this Court has
no hesitation in holding that the impugned letters dated 23.10.2019 and
19.04.2021 do not withstand judicial scrutiny and are, accordingly, set
aside. As a natural corollary thereof, any notices issued under Section 47-
A of the Stamp Act, as well as any subsequent orders passed by the
Collector or the Commissioner, relying upon the impugned letters, shall
also stand set aside.
34. All the writ petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-21126-2021 and connected cases 50
35. Pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.
36. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each
connected case.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
October 31, 2026 JUDGE
devinder
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.10.31 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment