The main legal point established is that under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, the lapse of acquisition proceedings is contingent upon the non-payment of compensation and non-possession of the land. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of physical possession taken by the State and the tendering of compensation in discharging the obligations under Section 24(2).

JUDGMENT :

RAVI SHANKER JHA, J.

The petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

“A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the action of the respondents intimated vide letter No. 1467 dated 18.03.2015 (Annexure P-10) and other actions as being contrary to the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, enforced with effect from 01.01.2014 and to declare that the entire acquisition proceedings qua the property of the petitioner of Khasra No.109//18/3 min(0-14), which commenced by notification under Section 4 dated 04.06.1986 (Annexure P-3) and Award No. 7 dated 10.11.1987 (Annexure P-5) in respect of land of petitioner situated within the revenue estate of Bhiwani Lohar, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased 14/82 shares equivalent to 14 marlas of land in Khasra No. 109//18/3 (4-2) vide registered sale deed dated 30.01.1986 in the revenue estate of Village Bhiwani Lohar, Tehsil & District Bhiwani. The said land was acquired by the State of Haryana vide notifications dated 04.06.1986 and 15.04.1987 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, followed by award dated 10.11.1987 for the public purpose, namely, the development and utilization of land as Residential and Commercial area under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. Though the petitioner did not challenge the acquisition proceedings, however some co-sharers in the land in question had challenged the proceedings before this Court by filing a Civil Writ Petition No.3419 of 1987, wherein this Court had stayed the dispossession of the petitioners therein on 25.01.1988. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 11.03.2011. It is urged that the petitioner is still in actual and physical possession of the land in question. He had constructed a room and four walls where the petitioner used to reside and tether his cattle. Further, despite announcement of award on 10.11.1987, no compensation has been paid to the petitioner and same is lying with the Land Acquisition Collector. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings qua the land in question stands lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of Act of 2013.

3. Per contra, Mr. Ankur Mittal, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the respondent-State of Haryana submits that the contention of the petitioner of being in possession of the land in question is devoid of merits as the possession of the land was taken by recording Rapat Roznamcha No. 121 dated 10.11.1987 and the same was handed over to the beneficiary department. He submits that the factum of the stay of dispossession from the land in favour of the co-sharers would not imply that such stay was in operation in favour of the petitioner as well. Since the possession of the land stands taken, same stands vested in the State free from all encumbrances.

4. Further, he contends that the compensation for the land in question was duly tendered i.e., was made available to the petitioner, however he has chosen not to receive the same. In order to substantiate the same, a reliance has been placed on the fact that majority of compensation has already been disbursed to the landowners as out of the total compensation for the entire awarded land i.e. Rs. 2,33,59,886/-, an amount of Rs. 2,21,91,872/- i.e. 95% of the total compensation amount stands disbursed to the landowners. He submits that the amount was tendered to the petitioner as well, however, he has himself chosen not to receive the compensation which is still available for disbursement. Therefore, it is submitted that since none of the contingencies mentioned in Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 are fulfilled as possession of the land stands duly taken and the obligation of the State to pay the compensation stands discharged with the tender/payment of compen