The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the acquisition proceedings to lapse under Section 24(2) of Act of 2013, both the contingencies of non-possession and non-payment of compensation must be fulfilled. The court clarified that the obligation to pay compensation is complete by tendering the amount, and physical possession of the land vests it in the State, free from all encumbrances.

JUDGMENT

Ravi Shanker Jha, C.J. - The petitioner has filed instant writ petition seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the notification dated 15.11.2002 and 12.11.2003 issued under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and award dated 18.11.2005 for the public purpose namely, Development of Integrated Complex for Industrial, Institutional, Commercial and Recreational and other public utilities vide which the land of the petitioner was acquired and has further sought declaration to the effect that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of Act of 2013.

2. As per the case set up by the petitioner, it is an industrial unit having manufacturing facility for automobile parts. The company is in possession of the land situated in Rect No. 14 Killa No. 11/1 (5-2), 12/2 (511), 13 (8-0), 18/1 (2-0), 19/1 (6-0) total measuring 26 Kanal 13 Marla in revenue estate of Village Begampur, Tehsil and District Gurugram. The company purchased the adjoining land measuring 26 Kanal 13 marla, the details of which is given in para no. 5 of the petition for expansion of the existing industrial unit. The said land along with other land came to be notified for acquisition by the State of Haryana through Department of Industries vide notifications dated 15.11.2002 and 12.11.2003 issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The notifications were challenged by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 6180 of 2004, which was disposed of vide order dated 16.07.2005 based on the statement of the Advocate General, Haryana thereby offering to constitute a High-Powered Committee which would take decision after considering the grievances of the persons approaching the Court challenging the acquisition proceedings. In the meantime, the status quo was ordered to be maintained till the time decision is taken and same shall be maintained 15 days after the decision of the committee. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a representation date 07.09.2005 before the Director Industries Department Haryana for release of land and was called for personal hearing on 18.10.2005. The High-Powered Committee submitted its report dated 10.11.2005 that the site is lying vacant. This finding was contradictory to the show cause notice dated 28.09.2005 served upon the petitioner unit to show cause as to why the building has been erected without a valid CLU from the competent authority. During the pendency of the proceedings, award dated 18.11.2005 was announced.

3. The report of the High-Powered Committee was challenged by the petitioner in filing Civil Writ Petition No.19742 of 2005. This Court vide order dated 21.11.2008 directed the state to constitute a committee and to consider the case of the petitioner afresh. Accordingly, committee was constituted and as submitted by the petitioner, recommended to release that portion of land which was situated under the shed and all surrounding land was recommended to be acquired as it was lying vacant. The report was submitted before this Court and referring to the affidavit, learned Advocate General, Haryana stated that Government had accepted the report of the Committee with regards to release of land subject to the conditions imposed by the Committee. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of vide order dated 22.12.2009. The petitioner had given consent to the report of the committee, which now they state to have been given under trauma, as a result of which 6 Kanal land was released from acquisition. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for recall of order dated 22.12.2019, which was dismissed by this Court on 19.02.2010.

4. Now, the left-over land, which is under acquisition as per the petitioner, is under its possession and neither any compensation has been paid nor deposited in the Reference Court. Therefore, acquisition proceedings qua such land stands lapsed under Section 24(2) of Act of 2013.

5.