JUDGMENT

Ravi Shanker Jha, C. J. (Oral) - The genesis of the instant case lies in the era of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as 1894 Act) which is commonly known as 'era of compulsory acquisition' whose basic foundation was 'public interest' which was given supremacy over 'private interest'. It is well known facet of law that whensoever conflict arises between public interest and private interest, the private interest has to make way for the public interest, and that is how the 1894 Act contributed to the development of this country. The 1894 Act was in itself a complete code and had prescribed the procedure so as to raise grievance against the action of the State Government to acquire someone's land, and whensoever Courts found any deviation by the State or its authorities from settled procedure the interference has been made so as to come to the rescue of such land owners.

Applying the said settled principles to the factual matrix of the present case, the question which arises for consideration is as to whether a land owner who remained silent and is now approaching the Court on the basis of the provision of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred as 2013 Act) can take up those pleas as well, which were available to him at an earlier point of time but never taken, under the guise of deeming fiction of lapsing provided under the 2013 Act, or his silence all throughout will invoke the doctrine of acquiescence which as per the consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is sufficient to even destroy the right of such person. Besides, if the land owner is allowed to raise such pleas at such a belated stage, would not it result in allowing the public interest to suffer, hampering of the process of development, going against the concept of vesting of land in State and unsettling the settled competing rights between the parties in contradiction to well settled tenets of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India through various judicial pronouncements including the recent Hon'ble Constitution Bench Judgment in the case titled as 'Indore Development Authority Vs. Manohar Lal and others' cited as 'AIR 2020 Supreme Court 1496'.

2. In order to decide the controversy involved and to answer the issues taken up for adjudication, certain elemental facts are required to be noted. In exercise of the power vested in it under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act, the Government of Haryana issued notification dated 20.04.1990 for the acquisition of the petitioner's land (described in Para 2 and 3 of the petition) along with the other parcels of land situated in Village Jharsa, Bindapur, Kanhai and Samaspur for the development and utilization thereof for residential, commercial and institutional parts of different sectors of Bahadurgarh.

3. As per the categoric case pleaded by the petitioners, a construction in the form of sheds within the boundary wall was situated on the part of their land bearing Khewat No. 6/4, Khanoni No. 6, Khasra No. 38//19/2/1 (1-15). The objection under Section 5A(1) of 1894 Act was filed by them, however, it did not find favour and their land including the constructed portion was included in the declaration issued under Section 6 of the 1894 Act. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Collector passed the award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act dated 23.03.1993.

4. In the instant petition, the petitioners have pleaded that even though the award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 23.03.1993, they are continuing their possession over the subject land and same has not been utilized for any purpose much less the public purpose for which it was acquired. The Parliament enacted the Act of 2013 with effect from 01.01.2014 thereby repealing the 1894 Act and also providing deeming fiction of lapsing by way of Section 24(2) of the Act which was made applicable to such cases of