IMPORTANT POINT
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Where possession could not be taken due to stay order/pending litigation, matters are required to be remanded for fresh decision.

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 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: non-payment of compensation or its deposit for a 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 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 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.

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 considerat