[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.9205 of 2022
(@  SLP (C) No.23446 of 2022)
(@ Diary No.29159 of 2021)
The State of Haryana & Ors. …Appellants
Versus
Sushila & Ors.              Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   05.12.2017   passed   by   the   High
Court   of   Punjab   and   Haryana   at   Chandigarh   in   CWP
No.15720 of 2014 by which the High Court has allowed the
1

said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with
respect   to   the   land   in   question   is   deemed   to   have   lapsed
under   Section   24(2)   of   the   Right   to   Fair   Compensation   and
Transparency   in   Land   Acquisition,   Rehabilitation   and
Resettlement   Act,   2013   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘the   Act
2013’),   the   State   of   Haryana   has   preferred   the   present
appeal.
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that before the
High   Court   it   was   the   case   on   behalf   of   the   private
respondents   herein   ­   original   writ   petitioners   that   the
compensation   with   respect   to   the   land   in   question   has   not
been   paid   to   them   and   even   the   possession   of   the   lands   in
question is with them and therefore, in view of Section 24(2)
of  the   Act,  2013   the   acquisition   with  respect   to   the   land   in
question is deemed to have lapsed as neither the possession
has  been taken  over  nor  the  compensation for  the acquired
land has been paid.
2

2.1 Before the High Court a written statement was filed by
the   Land   Acquisition   Officer.     It   was   specifically   disputed
that the possession of the acquired land was not taken over.
It   was   also   the   specific   case   on   behalf   of   the   appellants
herein   that   as   such   the   original   writ   petitioners   being   the
subsequent   purchasers   after   the   notification   under   Section
4   dated   26.08.2003   there   was   no   question   of   any
compensation to be paid to them.  It was submitted that the
petitioners   being   subsequent   purchasers   had   no   locus   to
challenge   the   acquisition   proceedings   more   particularly   to
pray   for   lapse   of   the   acquisition   proceedings.   The   relevant
part of the written statement read as under:
“1. That   the   petitioners   have   no   locus   standi   to
file   the   present   petition   before   this   Hon’ble   court
because   the   petitioners   were   not   owners   of   the
acquired   land  at  the  time   of  the  notification   under
section – 4 dated 26.08.2003 and under section – 6
dated   10.08.2004.     The   gram   Panchayat   of   village
Nathupur   was   owner   of   the   land   bearing   khasra
no. 155 (1­7­0), 156/1(0­3­8), 156/3(1­18­17).  The
petitioners   were   tenants   in   the   land   in   dispute   as
per   the   revenue   record.     The   petitioners   become
owners   of   the   land   in   dispute   vide   order   dated
3

24.05.2006   passed   by   the   Hon’ble   High   court   in
Regular  Second Appeal  no. 1578 of 1990 and Civil
Misc   no.   3568­C   of   2006.     Immediately   thereafter
the petitioners no’s 1,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and 18 sold
their   land   in   dispute   to   the   other   person   i.e.
Dharmpal   son   of   Paras   Ram   vide   sale   deed   no’s.
8637 dated 4.7.2006 and mutation no. 2218 dated
09.08.2006   was   also   sanctioned   in   favour   of
vendee. The sale of the land by the petitioners was
well   before   the   announcement   of   the   Award   no.   8
dated   04.08.2006.     So   the   petitioners   are   not
entitled   to   file   the   present   petition   against   the
acquisition   proceeding   after   disbursement   of
compensation   and   the   present   petition   is   liable   to
be dismissed with the cost on this ground. 
xxx xxx xxx
3. That   the   total   compensation   amount   of   the
awarded   land   is   Rs.76,32,858/­.     The
compensation of the acquired land was not paid to
the   petitioners   because   the   petitioners   no.
1,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11   and   18   were   not   owners   of   the
acquired land on the date of passing the Award and
other   land   owners   did   not   give   their   consent   to
receive   the   compensation   amount   of   the   acquired
land and did not provide any documentary proof to
prove   their   ownership   and   as   such   un­disbursed
amount,   is   lying   deposited   in   the   account   of   the
LAC,   and   is   available   for   payment   immediately   on
demand   of   actual   land   owners   on   the   date   of
passing the Award.
xxx xxx xxx
10. That   the   contents   of   Para   no.   10   of   the   writ
petition   are   admitted   to   the   extent   that   the   award
of   the   land   in   dispute   was   announced   on
4

04.08.2006.     It   is   specifically   denied   that   the
petitioners   are   in   physical   possession   of   the
acquired   land.     It   is   submitted   that   possession   of
the   acquired   land   has   been   handed   over   to   the
representative   of   HUDA   on   the   same   day   of   the
award   vide   Rapat   no.   702   date   04.08.2006.     The
petitioners   are   encroachers   in   the   acquired   land.
Rest of the contents of this Para is matter of record.
xxx xxx xxx
14. That   the   contents   of   Para   no.   14   of   the   writ
petition   are   wrong   and   denied.     It   is   specifically
denied   that   the   acquisition   proceeding   qua   the
petitioners   has   lapsed   as   per   the   provision   of
section   24   (2)   of   Right   to   fair   compensation   and
transparency   in   Land   Acquisition,   Rehabilitation
and   Resettlement   Act   2013.     It   is   submitted   that
the   physical   possession   of   the   acquired   land   has
been handed over to the representative of HUDA on
the   same   day   of   the   award   vide   Rapat   no.   702
dated 04.08.2006.   The petitioners are encroachers
in   the   acquired   land   and   compensation   of   the
acquired   land   was   not   paid   to   the   petitioners
because   they   are   not   owners   of   the   acquired   land
and   were   not   entitled   to   the   same.     Rest   of   the
contents of this Para is matter of record. 
xxx xxx xxx
17. That   the   contents   of   Para   no.   17   of   the   writ
petition are wrong and denied.   It is submitted that
the   acquisition   proceeding   qua   the   petitioners
cannot be lapsed as per the provision of section 24
(2) of Right to  fair  compensation  and transparency
in   Land   Acquisition,   Rehabilitation   and
Resettlement   Act   2013,   because   the   physical
possession   of   the   acquired   land   has   been   handed
over to the representative of HUDA on the same day
of the award vide Rapat no. 702 dated 04.08.2006.
The   petitioners   are   encroachers   in   the   acquired
5

land   and   compensation   of   the   acquired   land   was
not   paid   to   the   petitioners   because   they   are   not
owners   of   the   acquired   land.     The   acquisition
proceedings   have   been   carried   out   as   per   the
demarcation   given   by   Distt,   Town   Planner,
Gurgaon,   in   accordance   with   the   mandatory
provisions   of   the   L.A.   Act.     The   acquisition   is   just
as per law in the interest of public at large and not
Liable   to   be   quashed   on   any   of   the   grounds
mentioned by the petitioners in this Para of the writ
petition.   That no law points is involved in the writ
petition which requires adjudication by this Hon’ble
High Court.   The contentions raised in sub Para (i)
to (iv) are wrong and hence denied. The acquisition
proceeding   were   carried   out   in   accordance   with
Law.” 
3. From   the   aforesaid   it   can   be   seen   that   it   was   the
specific case on behalf of the appellants that the possession
of   the   land   in   question   was   taken   over   and   handed   over   to
the   beneficiary   on   04.08.2006.     It   was   also   the   case   on
behalf   of   the   appellant   that   the   petitioners   are   encroachers
in the acquired land and compensation of the acquired land
was   not   paid   to   them   because   they   were   not   co­owners   at
the   time   of   award.     The   aforesaid   has   not   at   all   been
considered   by   the   High   Court   while   passing   the   impugned
judgment   and   order.     As   the   possession   was   taken   over   by
6

the acquiring body and was handed over  to the beneficiary,
any   possession   by   the   petitioners   thereafter   can   be   said   to
be   encroachment   and   the   encroachers   cannot   be   permitted
to   take   the   benefit   of   the   provisions   of   Section   24(2)   of   the
Act, 2013 and pray that as now they are in possession, may
be   as   encroachers,   they   are   entitled   to   relief   under   Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013.   It would be giving a premium to the
illegality and the encroachers which cannot be the intention
of the legislature.
4. Even   otherwise   as   observed   and   held   by   this   Court   in
the case of  Delhi Administration Through Secretary, Land
and   Building   vs.   Pawan   Kumar   &   Ors.,   Civil   Appeal
No.3646   of   2022   and   Delhi   Development   Authority
versus   Godfrey   Phillips   (I)   Ltd.   &   Ors,   Civil   Appeal
No.3073 of 2022,  the subsequent purchasers have no locus
to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of acquisition.
7

4.1 Applying   the   law   laid   down   by   this   Court   in   the
aforesaid   two   decisions,   the   writ   petition   at   the   instance   of
the   private   respondents   herein   –   original   writ   petitioners
being   subsequent   purchasers   ought   not   to   have   been
entertained   by   the   High   Court   challenging   the   acquisition
proceedings   and/or   praying   for   lapse   of   the   acquisition
under   Section   24(2)   of   the   Act,   2013.     Under   the
circumstances   also   the   impugned   judgment   and   order
passed by the High Court is unsustainable.
5. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reason   stated   above
the   present   appeal  succeeds.    The  impugned   judgment  and
order passed by the High Court passed in C WP No.15720 of
2014   is   hereby   quashed   and   set   aside.     The   original   writ
petition   filed   by   the   private   respondents   –   original   writ
petitioners, stands dismissed accordingly.  
P resent appeal is accordingly allowed.      No costs.  
8

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
………………………………….J.
                          [M.R. SHAH]
                ………………………………….J.
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT]
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 13, 2023.
9