State of Haryana vs Hira Singh - 2023 Supreme(SC) 460

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 460

M. R. SHAH, C. T. RAVIKUMAR
State of Haryana – Appellant
Versus
Hira Singh – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. B.K. Satija, A.A.G. Dr. Monika Gusain, Adv. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Ms. Amrita Verma, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR Mr. Hariom Yadurashi, Adv. Ms. S. Harini, Adv. Mr. Avi Dhankar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rahul Kaushik, AOR Mr. Chandra Kant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gopi Chand, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Teotia, Adv. Mr. Anand Prakash, Adv. Mr. Roshan Lal, Adv. Mr. Aaksah Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Avirat Kumar, Adv. For M/s. Khaitan & Co., AOR 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. Kaushal Yadav, Adv. Mr. Apar Chopra, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kalra, Adv. Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv. Ms. Yashoda Katiyar, Adv. Mr. Ram Kishor Singh Yadav, AOR Mr. Siddharth Mittal, AOR Mr. Kshitiz Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Pushplata Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Shilpa G Mittal, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Tomar, Adv. Mr. Rishav Vats, Adv. Mr. Daya Krishan Sharma, AOR Mr. Rohit Vats, Adv. Mr. Shubham Rana, Adv. Mr. Vikrant Y.s Narula, Adv. Mrs. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Ms. Rashmi Singhania, Adv. Mr. Parikshit Mahiphal, Adv. Ms. Sweta Rani, AOR

JUDGMENT :

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 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(SC) 460

M. R. SHAH, C. T. RAVIKUMARState of Haryana – AppellantVersusHira Singh – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

M. R. SHAH, C. T. RAVIKUMAR
State of Haryana – Appellant
Versus
Hira Singh – Respondent