Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 344

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (HSIIDC) & Others - Appellants
Versus
Honeywell International (India) Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2052 of 2023 with Civil Appeal No. 2126 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2108 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2111 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2097 of 2023, Civil Appeal Nos. 2135-2136 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.6260-6261/2023 @ Diary No. 26393/2017), Civil Appeal No. 2142 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 6282/2023 @ Diary No. 29328/2017), Civil Appeal No. 2139 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.6278/2023 @ Diary No. 29500/2017), Civil Appeal No. 2140 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.6279/2023 @ Diary No. 29503/2017), Civil Appeal No. 2144 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.6285/2023 @ Diary No. 31241/2017), Civil Appeal No. 2146 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 6289/2023 @ Diary No. 31266/2017), Civil Appeal No. 2145 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.6287/2023 @ Diary No. 31272/2017), Civil Appeal No. 2152 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 6301/2023 @ Diary No. 21383/2019), Civil Appeal No. 2129 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2128 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2130 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2131 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2153 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 6302/2023 @ Diary No. 29459/2019), Civil Appeal No. 2127 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2155 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 6304/2023 @ Diary No. 30171/2019), Civil Appeal No. 2156 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 6305/2023 @ Diary No. 30697/2019), Civil Appeal No. 2154 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 6303/2023 @ Diary No. 31327/2019), Civil Appeal No. 2151 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.6298/2023 @ Diary No. 33156/2019), Civil Appeal No. 2133 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2134 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2132 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2062 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2063 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2071 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2084 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2085 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2086 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2090 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2088 of 2023, Civil Appeal Nos. 2098-2105 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2137 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 6265/2023 @ Diary No. 22444/2017), Civil Appeal No. 2150 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 6293/2023 @ Diary No. 28982/2017), Civil Appeal No. 2138 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.6276/2023 @ Diary No. 29502/2017), Civil Appeal No. 2143 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 6284/2023 @ Diary No. 30833/2017), Civil Appeal No. 2119 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2148 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 6291/2023 @ Diary No. 31247/2017), Civil Appeal No. 2147 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.6290/2023 @ Diary No. 31257/2017), Civil Appeal No. 2118 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2141 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 6280/2023 @ Diary No. 33385/2017), Civil Appeal No. 2124 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2122 of 2023, Civil Appeal Nos. 2114-2117 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2113 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2123 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2121 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2125 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2157 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 6306/2023 @ Diary No.10677/2018), Civil Appeal No. 2056 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2059 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2058 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2068 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2073 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2078 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2079 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2065 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2067 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2072 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2077 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2082 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2053 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2055 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2064 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2070 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2057 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2083 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2106 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2094 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2095 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2089 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2092 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2093 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2087 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2091 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2109 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2110 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2112 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2120 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2149 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.6292/2023 @ Diary No. 31499/2017), Civil Appeal No. 2054 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2060 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2074 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2061 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2080 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2081 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2066 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2075 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2076 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2096 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2069 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2107 of 2023
Decided On : 11-04-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Nikhil Goel, AOR Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR Mr. Hariom Yaduvanshi, Adv. Ms. S. Harini, Adv. Mr. B. K. Satija, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Mr. B.K. Satija, A.A.G. Mr. Alok Sangwan, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Ms. Amrita Verma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Pallavi Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Avish Bhati, Adv. Mr. Raj Kamal, AOR Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Saroha, Adv. Mr. Niketou Rio, Adv. Mr. Kundan Kumar Lal, AOR Mr. Alok Kumar Prasad, Adv. Mr. A. N. Arora, AOR Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Shantwanu Singh, Adv. Ms. Pragya Singh, Adv. Mr. Sunny Singh, Adv. Mr. Akshay Singh, Adv. Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, AOR Mrs. Manju Singh, Adv. Mr. Tarun Verma, Adv. M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Adv. Mrs. Vanita Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Aseem Chaturvedi, Adv. Mrs. Abhisaar Bairagi, Adv. Mrs. Trishala Trivedi, Adv. Mr. Milind Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Adv. Ms. Anju Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, Adv. Ms. Usha Nandini V., AOR Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, AOR Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Samant Singh, Adv. Mr. Arun K. Sinha, AOR Mr. S. D. Singh, Adv. Ms. Bharti Tyagi, AOR Ms. Meenu Singh, Adv. Ms. Shweta Sinha, Adv. Mr. Ramkripal Singh, Adv. Mr. Ram Kripal Singh, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Singh, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav, AOR Mr. Prateek Yadav, Adv. Mr. Puran Mal Saini, Adv. Ms. Anzu K. Varkey, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Patil, Adv. Mr. Yogesh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Jose Abraham, AOR Mr. Vivek Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rahul Goel, Adv. Ms. Anu Monga, Adv. Ms. Parul Parmar, Adv. Ms. Kriti, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Nand Lal Sammi, Adv. Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Ms. Adviteeya, Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. Mukul Kumar, AOR Ms. Malini Sood, Adv. Ms. Vidhi Goel, Adv. Mr. Krishna Dev Yadav, Adv. Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, AOR Mr. Sachin Jain, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ved Parkash, Adv. Mr. Vishal, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr. Ashish Singh, Adv. Mr. Kapil Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Agarwal, AOR Mr. Dhawesh Pahuja, Adv. Mr. Nilesh Sharma, Adv. M/S. Ap & J Chambers, AOR Mr. Ravindra Bana, AOR Mr. Siddharth Mittal, Adv. Mr. Kshitiz Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shilpa G Mittal, Adv. Ms. Pushplata Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Mittal, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Tomar, Adv. Mr. Devendra Singh, AOR Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick, AOR Mr. Manoj Swarup, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankit Swarup, AOR Mr. Neelmani Pant, Adv. Ms. Kriti Dang, Adv. Mr. Vasudev Singh, Adv. Mr. Narendra Hooda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Somvir Singh Deswal, Adv. Mr. Satbir Singh, Adv. Mr. Kuldeep Singh Bhakar, adv. Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Amit Kumari Saroha, Adv. Mr. Nischal Kumar Neeraj, AOR Mr. Shubham Bhalla, AOR Mr. Aabhas Kshetarpal, Adv. Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Jha, AOR Ms. Priyambika Mk Jha, Adv. Mr. Mohit Kumar Gupta, AOR Ms. Shobha Gupta, AOR Mr. Somiran Sharma, AOR Mr. Narender Kumar Verma, AOR Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, AOR Mr. Saksham Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. Sukant Vikram, AOR Ms. Ankita Patnaik, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Ms. Manisha Ambwani, AOR Mr. Aditya Singh, AOR Mr. Shubham Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Dalal, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Yadav, Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, AOR Mr. Tushar Bakshi, AOR Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR Ms. Soumya Dhankani, Adv. Mrs. Shubhangi Negi, Adv. Dr. M S Verma, Adv. Mr. Mahendra Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shashi Singh, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Bahadur Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajnish Kumar Jha, AOR Mr. Mahabir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gagandeep Sharma, Adv. Mr. Veerendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Bhati, Adv. Mr. Sunklan Porwal, Adv. Ms. Preeti Singh, AOR Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Jayant K Sud, A.S.G. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Gautam Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR Mr. Parmanand Yadav, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Chaterjee, Adv. Mr. Jinendra Jain, AOR M/S. Corporate Law Group, AOR Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, AOR Mr. Sajal Jain, Adv. Ms. Sonakshi Malhna, Adv. Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, AOR Mr. Ishaan George, AOR Mr. Sonal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, Adv. Mr. Sarvam Ritam Khare, AOR Mr. Bijender S. Chaudhry, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. S. K. Rajora, Adv. Ms. Kajal Kumari, Adv. Ms. Niharika Dewivedi, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv..

Possession and compensation aspects are crucial in determining the sustainability of relief under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013.

Headnote:Land Acquisition - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Section 24(2)) - Summary:
Fact of the Case:
The Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC) and the State of Haryana appealed against the High Court's declaration that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013. The appeals involved challenges to acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as well as cases seeking a declaration of deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court allowed all appeals, quashing the High Court's judgments declaring deemed lapse of acquisition. The matters were remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration on other grounds except for Section 24(2) applicability.
Issues:
Challenges to acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that judgments granting relief under Section 24(2) were unsustainable based on precedents like Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Others Etc., (2020) 8 SCC 129. It emphasized that possession and compensation aspects should be considered while deciding on other issues.
Final Decision:
All appeals were allowed, quashing the High Court's judgments declaring deemed lapse of acquisition. Matters were remitted back to consider other grounds except for Section 24(2).

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgments and orders passed in C.W.P. No. 4015/2006 and other allied writ petitions, by which the High Court has declared that the acquisition/acquisition proceedings with respect to the respective lands in question has/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 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (for short, ‘HSIIDC’) and the State of Haryana have preferred the present appeals. In some of the appeals, challenge is to the respective judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the present group of appeals can be divided into two categories, namely, (1) before the High Court the respective original writ petitioners like C.W.P. No. 4015/2006 and other allied writ petitions also challenged the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘Act, 1894’) on number of grounds, and (2) the writ petitions which were filed simply for a declaration that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 in which the acquisition under the Act, 1894 was not under challenge.

Civil Appeal Nos. 2052/2023, 2108/2023, 2111/2023, 2097/2023, 2144/2023, 2146/2023, 2145/2023, 2129/2023, 2153/2023, 2062/2023, 2063/2023, 2071/2023, 2084/2023, 2085/2023, 2086/2023, 2090/2023, 2088/2023, 2148/2023, 2147/2023, 2056/2023, 2059/2023, 2058/2023, 2068/2023, 2073/2023, 2078/2023, 2079/2023, 2065/2023, 2067/2023, 2072/2023, 2077/2023, 2082/2023, 2053/2023, 2055/2023, 2064/2023, 2070/2023, 2057/2023, 2083/2023, 2106/2023, 2094/2023, 2095/2023, 2089/2023, 2092/2023, 2093/2023, 2087/2023, 2091/2023, 2109/2023, 2110/2023, 2054/2023, 2060/2023, 2074/2023, 2061/2023, 2080/2023, 2081/2023, 2066/2023, 2075/2023, 2076/2023, 2096/2023, 2069/2023, 2107/2023, 2126/2023,2140/2023, 2152/2023, 2130/2023, 2131/2023, 2133/2023, 2134/2023, 2132/2023, 2098-2105/2023, 2150/2023, 2138/2023, 2143/2023, 2119/2023, 2141/2023, 2122/2023, 2114-2117/2023, 2113/2023, 2121/2023, 2157/2023, 2120/2023 & 2149/2023 (total 80 cases)

3. In all these appeals, the issue relates to the first category, namely, where before the High Court, the original writ petitioners challenged the acquisition/acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894, which, as such, were filed much prior to the Act, 2013 came into force and submitted the amendment applications for the relief of deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the grounds that neither the possession was taken over nor the compensation was paid/tendered. Without deciding the writ petitions on merits on other grounds, more particularly the grounds on which the acquisition/acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894 were under challenge, solely relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has allowed the 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 Act, 2013.

Civil Appeal Nos.2135-2136/2023, 2142/2023, 2139/2023, 2128/2023, 2127/2023, 2155/2023, 2156/2023, 2154/2023, 2151/2023, 2137/2023, 2118/2023,2124/2023, 2123/2023, 2125/2023 & 2112/2023 (Total 15 cases)

4. All these appeals fall in other category, namely, in which the only relief was sought under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is concerned, 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 Act, 2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(SC) 344

Possession and compensation aspects are crucial in determining the sustainability of relief under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013.

Related Judgments

Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (HSIIDC) VS Honeywell International (India) Pvt. Ltd - 2023 Supreme(SC) 344

State of Haryana VS Hira Singh - 2023 3 Supreme 65

Govt. of NCT of Delhi VS Mohd. Maqbool - 2022 Supreme(SC) 1255

Government of NCT of Delhi VS Shakeel Ahmed - 2023 Supreme(SC) 104

Government of NCT of Delhi VS Subhash Gupta - 2023 Supreme(SC) 106

Government of NCT of Delhi VS Manish - 2023 Supreme(SC) 105

Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Bangalore VS State of Karnataka - 2022 4 Supreme 193

Government of NCT of Delhi VS Krishna Saini - 2022 8 Supreme 721

Union of India Through Land Acquisition Collector VS Rajesh Kumar - 2023 Supreme(SC) 199

CHANDAN LAL AND OTHERS vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS - 2014 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 487