The judgment establishes the importance of physical possession and disbursement of compensation in determining the lapsing of acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act.

ORDER

Augustine George Masih, J. - By filing the present writ petition, petitioners have challenged notification dated 27.08.2004 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 1894 Act'), notification dated 24.08.2005 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 6 of the 1894 Act and award dated 21.03.2007 (Annexure P-3) with a prayer for release of their land as per Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 2013 Act') in the light of the judgment dated 27.10.2016 (Annexure P-9) passed by this Court in a bunch of cases, one of which was CWP No.2115 of 2014, titled as 'Pritam Kumar Goel & others Vs. State of Haryana & others'.

2. It has been pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioners had submitted their objections under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 04.01.2007, but without deciding the same, award dated 21.03.2007 (Annexure P-3) has been passed. Thereafter, petitioners approached this Court by filing CWP No.16415 of 2006, which was disposed of vide order dated 31.10.2013 (Annexure P-7) upholding the notifications dated 27.08.2004 (Annexure P-l) and dated 24.08.2005 (Annexure P-2). Assailing the said order dated 31.10.2013 (Annexure P-7), petitioners had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP, which also stood dismissed vide order dated 01.05.2017 (Annexure P-8), however, liberty was granted to the petitioners to take their remedies in accordance with law, if they have any grievance about lapsing of proceedings which may require adjudication of a disputed question of fact.

3. In the meantime, similarly situated landowner approached this Court for quashing the acquisition proceedings in the light of Section 24 (2) of 2013 Act, by filing CWP No.2115 of 2014, titled as 'Pritam Kumar Goel & others Vs. State of Haryana & others', which has been decided with eight other similar case vide judgment dated 27.10.2016 (Annexure P-9) granting the benefit of Section 24 (2) of 2013 to the landowners.

Counsel for the petitioners asserts that in the light of the above judgment of this Court and keeping in view the provisions as contained in Section 24 (2) of 2013 Act, respondents having neither taken physical possession of the land nor have the compensation amount been disbursed, would render the land of the petitioners acquired vide award dated 21.03.2007 (Annexure P-3) liable to be released, in view of Section 24 (2) of 2013 Act. It is asserted that the land acquisition proceedings under 1894Act would lapse. Counsel for the petitioners, on this basis, asserts that the notifications dated 27.08.2004 (Annexure P-l) and dated 24.08.2005 (Annexure P-2) as also award dated 21.03.2007 (Annexure P-3) cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the objections filed by the petitioners were heard on 27.10.2004 and considering the same, constructed portion along with the proportionate open space measuring 7965 square yards of land was released from acquisition which includes office, four rooms, toilet, two storage sheds, labour quarters and three industrial sheds. Remaining land was vacant and therefore, the same was acquired. This fact has not been mentioned in the writ petition and intentionally, concealed by them by stating that their objections were not considered and decided. He submits that on this ground, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

Counsel for the respondents further submits for applicability of Section 24 (2) of 2013 Act, which would entitle the petitioners the benefit of release of land on the lapsing of the acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, there should neither be physical possession taken nor compensation paid. If any of the two contingencies has been complied with, then the land acquisition proceedings under 1894 Act would not la