JUDGMENT

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner had asked for de-notification or for release of the petition lands, thus on the ground that the earlier issued notification(s) Annexure P-4, and, Annexure P-5, as became respectively issued on 18.08.1987, and, 16.08.1988, in terms of sections 4 and 6 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter for short call as the 'Act of 1894'), thus inviting the mandate of Section 24 (2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter for short refer to as the 'Act of 2013'), whereby there is lapsing of the earlier launched acquisition proceedings under the 'Act of 1894'.

2. The above claim/prayer in the writ petition was contested on behalf of the respondents through theirs instituting a reply on affidavit to the present petition.

Factual background of the case

3. The petitioner has earlier accessed this Court through theirs instituting Civil Writ Petition no. 26589 of 2016, and, through a decision made thereon on 27.11.2017, this Court allowed the writ claim, as became banked upon the provisions of Section 24 (2) of 'Act of 2013' and thereby concluded that the earlier launched acquisition proceedings under the 'Act of 1894' thus became lapsed. However, the verdict (supra), became challenged at the instance of the State of Haryana before the Hon'ble Apex Court, through its filing civil appeal No. 6468 of 2021. On the said SLP, the Hon'ble Apex Court, through an order made on 06.04.2022, set aside the verdict (supra), and remanded the lis to this Court for a decision afresh, but in accordance with law, thus being made there-on. The decision, as made by this Court was made on anvil of a verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as became pronounced in "Pune Municipal Corporation and Others v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others" (2014 (3) SCC 183). Nonetheless, since subsequent to the making of the said decision, a constitutional bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, made a verdict in case titled as " Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.", reported in (2020)8 SCC 129, whereby it departed from the earlier made verdict rendered in Pune Muncipal Corporation (supra). Since the verdict, as made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Indore Development Authority (supra), was rendered on 2020, whereas, the verdict of remand, as made on civil appeal no. 6468 of 2021 by the Hon'ble Apex Court thus was made on 06.04.2022, thereupon the verdict as made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indore Development (supra), is required to be applied to the facts at hand.

4. Before proceeding to apply the expostulations of law, as made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in verdict (supra), it is but obvious to extract the said expostulations and which become extracted hereinafter.

1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1.1.2014 the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.

2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.

3. The word 'or' used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as 'nor' or as 'and'. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been