JUDGMENT

Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, J.

The instant writ petition is cast to reap the relief(s) qua annulment of the lawfully terminated acquisition proceedings, as launched under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1894'). The relief(s) (supra) is craved upon the fundamentals of the lapsing provisions, as enshrined in Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2013').

Factual Background

2. The petition lands were brought to acquisition, by the respondent- State, through issuance of a preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, on 11.11.2002, which was succeeded by the issuance of a declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, on 07.11.2003. Ultimately, the acquisition proceedings in respect of the petition lands were lawfully terminated through pronouncement of an award bearing No.6, on 28.10.2005, and, through assumption of possession of the acquired lands on the same day vide Rapat No.123. However, since the petitioners admittedly did refuse to receive the determined compensation amount, therefore it was deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector concerned, as is evident from the written synopsis furnished by the respondents.

Submissions Of Learned Counsel For The Petitioners

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners claims the acquisition proceedings to have lapsed, as neither the actual physical possession of the acquired lands has been assumed by the acquiring authority concerned, nor the petitioners have received the compensation amount. He further claims that no notice, as contemplated under Section 9(1) of the Act of 1894, was ever served upon the petitioners, thereby expressing any intention to take possession of the acquired lands. The actual physical possession is alleged to be retained by the petitioners, whereas, only symbolic possession has been allegedly assumed by the acquiring authority concerned. Furthermore, he contends that noncompliance of the provisions, as carried in Section 31 (2) of the Act of 1894, also attracts the mandate of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 and renders the acquisition proceedings to lapse.

Submissions Of Learned Counsel For The Respondents

4. Per contra, the learned State counsel representing the respondents has vehemently objected the maintainability of the instant writ petition, inter alia on the ground of concealment qua previous rounds of litigation(s). He submits that the present writ petition constitutes the fifth round of litigation concerning the same subject matter, whereas, the petitioners have, except giving the details of CWP No.14834 of 2012 and CWP No.22038 of 2013, concealed the actual details of the litigation(s), as were initiated before this Court and which went upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The actual details of the litigation(s), as unfolded from a reading of the synopsis (supra), is summarily discussed hereinafter.

5. The petitioner No.3 along with other co-sharers launched the first round of litigation against the acquisition proceedings (supra), through instituting before this Court a Civil Writ Petition No.14264 of 2004, titled "Angrej Singh & ors. v. State of Haryana & ors.". However, the writ petition (supra) met the fate of dismissal, through an order made on 17.09.2004.

6. The dismissal order (supra) was challenged by the aggrieved petitioners therein, through instituting a SLP(C) bearing Diary No. 4668 of 2005, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the SLP(C) (supra) also received a dis-affirmative verdict, on 05.12.2005, thereby validating the acquisition proceedin