/2023 INSC 0379/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.                            of 2023
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20857 OF 2022)
The State of Haryana & Ors.   ...Appellants(s)
Versus
Hira Singh       …Respondent(s)
with
Civil Appeal No.                            of 2023
(@SLP(C) No. 28803/2018)
Civil Appeal No.                            of 2023
(@SLP(C) No. 30435/2018)
Civil Appeal No.                            of 2023
(@SLP(C) Nos. 418­419/2019)
Civil Appeal No.                            of 2023
(@SLP(C) No. 21301/2022)
Civil Appeal No.                            of 2023
(@SLP(C) No. 20856/2022)
Civil Appeal No.                            of 2023
(@SLP(C) No. 20859/2022)
Civil Appeal No.                            of 2023
Page  1  of  11

(@SLP(C) Nos. 20864­20865/2022)
Civil Appeal No.                            of 2023
(@SLP(C) No. 21305/2022)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the
impugned common judgment and order dated
27.10.2016   passed   by   the   High   Court   of
Punjab   and   Haryana   at   Chandigarh   in   CWP
No.   26213/2014   and   other   allied   writ
petitions, by which, the Division Bench of the
High Court has allowed the said writ petitions
and   has   declared   that   the   acquisition   with
respect to the lands in question is deemed to
have   lapsed   under   Section   24(2)   of   the   Right
to   Fair   Compensation   and   Transparency   in
Land   Acquisition,   Rehabilitation   and
Page  2  of  11

Resettlement   Act,   2013   (hereinafter   referred
to   as   “Act,   2013”),   the   State   of   Haryana   and
others have preferred the present appeals. 
2. From   the   impugned   common   judgment   and
order   passed   by   the   High   Court,   it   appears
that the Division Bench of the High Court has
declared   that   the   acquisition   with   respect   to
the   lands   of   respondents   –   original   writ
petitioners   shall   be   deemed   to   have   lapsed
under   Section   24(2)   of   the   Act,   2013   by
observing in paragraph 21 as under: ­ 
“(21)   It   is   undeniable   that
compensation  amount  has  not  been
paid   or   deposited   with   the   Civil   or
Reference Court as per Section 31(2)
of   the   1894   Act.   It   may   further   be
seen   from   the   date   of   Awards   in
each   case   that   the   same   were
passed   five   years   or   more   prior   to
the   new   Act   came   into   force   on
01.01.2014.   It   thus   stands
established that one of the statutory
stipulation   contained   in   Section
24(2)   re:   non­payment   of
compensation   or   its   deposit   for   a
Page  3  of  11

period of five years or more from the
date  of  passing   of  the  award  till  the
new   Act   came   into   force   stands
indisputably   established   in   these
cases. Equally correct will be to hold
that   the   petitioners   have   in   each
case   established   that   they   continue
to   retain   the   physical   possession   of
the acquired land/properties.”
2.1 It is the case on behalf of the State that in all
these cases the acquisition proceedings under
the   Land   Acquisition   Act,   1894   was   under
challenge by the land owners challenging  the
notification  issued  under  Sections   4/6   of  the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the respective
original land owners failed to get any relief. It
is   also   the   case   on   behalf   of   the   State   of
Haryana   that   in   fact   the   possession   of   the
lands in question acquired was already taken
over and in most of the cases by drawing the
Rapat/Rooznamcha   and   therefore,   upon
Page  4  of  11

taking   the   possession   the   lands   vested   with
the   State   Government.   It   is   submitted   that
therefore,   in   view   of   the   decision   of   the
Constitution   Bench   of   this   Court   in   the   case
of   Indore   Development   Authority   Vs.
Manoharlal   and   Ors.,   reported   in   (2020)   8
SCC   129 ,   there   shall   not   be   any   deemed
lapse of  acquisition with respect  to  the lands
acquired   as   observed   and   held   by   the   High
Court.   
3. Shri   K.T.S.   Tulsi   and   Shri   Gopal
Shankranarayanan, learned Senior Advocates
appearing   on   behalf   of   original   writ
petitioners   in   SLP   Nos.   20857/2022   and
28803/2018,   respectively,   in   the   cases   of
Hira   Singh   and   Pritam   Kumar   Goel,   have
submitted   that   in   fact   the   respective   land
Page  5  of  11

owners are in actual and physical possession
of  the   lands   in   question.   It   is   submitted   that
therefore and when the compensation has not
been   paid/tendered   as   per   Section   31   of   the
Land   Acquisition   Act,   1894   as   rightly
observed   and   held   by   the   High   Court,   there
shall   be   deemed   lapse   of   acquisition   as   the
conditions   mentioned   in   Section   24(2)   of   the
Act, 2013 are satisfied.  
3.1 Shri   K.T.S.   Tulsi,   learned   Senior   Advocate,
appearing on behalf of the original land owner
–   Hira   Singh   in   SLP   No.   20857/2022   has
relied   upon   some   documents   produced   along
with the  application  that  in fact  the proposal
for   realignment   of   the   road   is   going   on   and
therefore,   the   purpose   for   which   the   land   is
acquired, the land is not needed. 
Page  6  of  11

3.2 Shri   Gopal   Shankranarayanan,   learned
Senior   Advocate,   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
original   land   owner   –   Pritam   Kumar   Goel   in
SLP No. 28803/2018 has also submitted that
in   the   present   case   the   proposal   for   de­
acquisition of the land in question is pending
and is actively under consideration, for which
he   has   heavily   relied   upon   the   reply   under
the RTI Act.  
3.3 Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
respondents   in   other   Special   Leave   Petitions
have   requested/prayed   that   in   case   this
Court   proposes   to   remand   the   matter   to   the
High Court in that case liberty be reserved in
favour   of   the   land   owners   to   approach   the
State Government under Section 101­A of the
Act,   2013   as   applicable   to   the   State   of
Page  7  of  11

Haryana   for   de­acquisition   of   the   lands   in
question acquired.  
4. Having   heard   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   respective   parties   and   having
gone   through   the   impugned   common
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High
Court, more particularly, paragraph 21 of the
impugned   order   and   as   it   is   the   case   on
behalf   of   the   State   of   Haryana   that   the
possession of the lands in question was taken
over  by  preparing  Rapat/Rooznamcha and  in
one   case,   the   possession   could   not   be   taken
due   to   stay   order/pending   litigation,   the
matters   are   required   to   be   remanded   to   the
High Court to decide the writ petitions afresh
in accordance with law and on its own merits
taking   into   consideration   the   law   laid­down
Page  8  of  11

by   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Indore
Development Authority (supra).  
5. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons
stated   above,   without   further   entering   into
the   merits   of   the   cases   and   without
expressing anything on the merits in favour of
either   of   the   parties,   we   set   aside   the
impugned   common   judgment   and   order
passed   by   the   High   Court   and   remit   the
matters back to the High Court to decide the
same   afresh   in   accordance   with   law   and   on
its   own   merits   and   taking   into   consideration
the law laid down by this Court in the case of
Indore   Development   Authority   (supra).   All
the contentions which may be available to the
respective   parties   are   kept   open   to   be
considered   by   the   High   Court   in   accordance
Page  9  of  11

with   law   and   on   its   own   merits   as   observed
hereinabove. 
6. We   request   the   High   Court   to   decide   and
dispose of the writ petitions on remand at the
earliest and preferably within a period of nine
months from the date of receipt of the present
order.   However,   it   is   observed   that   the   order
of   remand   shall   not   preclude   the   State
Government   in   taking   any   appropriate
decision   on   de­acquisition   of   the   land   as
contended   on   behalf   of   the   original   land
owner   –   Pritam   Kumar   Goel   (In   SLP   No.
28803/2018)   and   the   same   may   be
considered in accordance with the law and on
its   own   merits   and   if   permissible   under   the
law. 
7. Similarly,   taking   into   consideration   order
dated   29.09.2021   passed   in   SLP   (C)   Nos.
Page  10  of  11

2966­2967/2021   and   other   allied   Special
Leave Petitions, liberty is reserved in favour of
the   original   writ   petitioners   to   make   a
representation   to   the   State   Government   in
terms   of   Section   101­A   of   the   Act,   2013,   as
applicable   to   the   State   of   Haryana,   to   be
made   within   a   month   from   today   if   they   so
desire,   which   may   be   decided   in   accordance
with   law   and   on   its   own   merits   within   a
period of four months thereafter, for which we
have   not   expressed   anything   in   favour   of
either of the parties.
Present appeals stand disposed of in terms of
the above. No costs.        
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
………………………………….J.
[C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
NEW DELHI;
MAY 02, 2023
Page  11  of  11