JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The instant writ petition became remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22.03.2024. The operative part of the said order is extracted hereinafter.

".....4. Having heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants - State of Haryana and the learned counsels for respondents at length and after carefully perusing the material placed on record, it appears that the High Court had declared the acquisition proceedings in question as lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. However, it is not disputed by the learned counsels for the parties that in view of the later decision in the case of "Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal And Ors. Etc." reported in (2020) 8 SCC (129), the matters are required to be remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration.

5. In view of the above, the impugned orders passed by the High Court are set aside and the matters are remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in the light of the Judgment in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra).

6. It is clarified that all contentions are kept open to be raised by both the parties as may be legally permissible.

7. The appeals stand allowed in above terms.

xxx"

2. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners ask for relief qua de-notification or for release of the petition lands, thus on the ground, that the notification(s) Annexure P-1, and, Annexure P-2, as became respectively issued on 27.11.2003, and, 24.11.2004, hence in terms of Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter for short call as the Act of 1894'), besides consequent thereto award dated 22.11.2006 (Annexure P-3), 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 occurs lapsing of the earlier launched acquisition proceedings under the 'Act of 1894'.

3. The instant writ petition became earlier allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 29.01.2018 being main case CWP-62-2014, thereby holding that the acquisition proceedings qua the land of the petitioner stands lapsed in view of the Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, Relevant paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereinafter.

"[8] In the light of the above discussion, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned acquisition qua the land or the properties of the petitioners is declared to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. However, on the analogy of the cited decisions, it is directed that the petitioners shall not change the nature of the land/properties and shall not create any third party rights in the released land for a period of one year so that if their subject property/land is required by the State for the notified public purpose, it may re-acquire the same in accordance with the 2013 Act. Even if the State Government decides not to acquire the petitioners' land, it is directed that the released land shall be used in conformity with the development plan of the area and the petitioners shall not be permitted to carry out any unauthorised/impermissible activity at the released property. Likewise, the petitioners shall be liable to pay the development charges in accordance with law. As regard to the development of green belt at Gurugram-Sohana Road for which a very small portion of the land of petitioners in CWP No.23543 of 2015 is required, we direct that let compensation qua that land be assessed under Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act and be released to the owners to the extent their land is to be utilised for the above mentioned public purpose. Similarly, in CWP No.4000 of 2017 the acquired land under occupation of Gair Morushi to the extent it is required for construction of road etc. shall be utilised free of cost whereas the acquisition qua the remaining