JUDGMENT

Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, J.

Since all these three writ petitions arise out of the same acquisition proceedings, besides identical questions of law are involved therein, therefore they are amenable for a common decision being made thereon. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from the lead petition, i.e. CWP-87-2020.

2. The petitioner, through the instant writ petition, seeks quashing of the notification dated 02.07.1973 (Annexure P-2), and, of the declaration dated 30.08.1973 (Annexure P-3), which were drawn respectively under sections 4 and 6 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1894'). The petitioner craves the relief (supra), on the ground, that despite acquisition be-ing made of the petition lands, through the notification and declaration (supra), and, despite an award being pronounced, on 16.10.1974, in pursuance to the noti-fication and declaration (supra), yet neither any compensation has been paid to him, nor the possession of the acquired lands has been assumed by the acquiring authority concerned. Therefore, by dint of Section 24 (2) of the The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2013'), the acquisition proceedings have lapsed, and resultantly, the notification and declaration (supra) merit revocation. The petitioner also seeks relief qua protection of his possession over the petition lands.

3. Upon notice of the present petition being issued, the learned State counsel filed reply, through affidavit of Rajesh Aggarwal, Additional Director, Industries and Commerce Department, Haryana, on behalf of the respondent No.1, and, brought on record certain vital facts, which the petitioner conveniently concealed from this Court. The reply (supra) unveils that the lands of the peti-tioner were brought to acquisition by the respondent- State, for public purpose, namely, for setting up of a Sheet Glass Industry at Village Shankhol, Tehsil Jhaj- jar, District Rohtak. To accomplish the said public purpose, a notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 02.07.1973, which was followed by issuance of a declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, on 30.08.1973. The notification and declaration (supra) were succeeded by the pronouncement of an award, on 20.06.1974, in respect of total 358 Kanals 7 Marlas of land.

4. The reply (supra) further make revelations, that upon pronounce-ment of the award (supra), the compensation amount of Rs.3,93,688.12/-, in lieu of the acquisition (supra), not only became tendered, but was also accepted by the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner even approached the learned Reference Court concerned, through his instituting a reference petition under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount and also suc-ceeded in the said motion.

5. The further disclosure, as made in the reply (supra), pertains to exe-cution of a deed of conveyance on 16.10.1974, in respect of 44.79 acres of ac-quired land, inter se the company concerned and the State Government. The pos-session of the land (supra) was assumed by the company concerned on 20.06.1974, as is evident from Rapat bearing No.429 recorded on 20.06.1974 (Annexure R-1).

6. The factum qua challenge being made to the acquisition proceedings (supra) through institution of CWP-14735-1991, at the instance of some of the landowners concerned, is also revealed in the reply (supra). Though the writ peti-tion (supra) was allowed by this Court, through an order made on 05.03.1992, however, upon the said order being a