IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 22.01.2025 Pronounced on: 07.02.2025 ATTAR SINGH .....Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Argued by: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate Ms. Gitanjali, Advocate Mr. Rohan Moudgil, Advocate Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Advocate and Mr. Deepak Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana Mr. P.P.Chahar, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. Saurabh Mago, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. Pravindra Singh Chauhan, Advocate with Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur Manchanda, Advocate and Ms. Saanvi Singla, Advocate for respondents-HSVP.

****

SURESHWAR THAKUR , J.

1. In the instant case, a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1894'), was issued on 27.12.2013. The said notification was challenged by the petitioner through his instituting the instant writ petition. The instant petition came up for hearing before this Court, on 24.02.2014. On the said date, this Court ordered the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession over the land in question.

2. Ultimately the instant writ petition became allowed vide judgment dated 05.09.2017, and the apposite notification was quashed and set aside.

3. The said judgment of 05.09.2017, as passed by this Court, became challenged by the State of Haryana before the Apex Court, through its filing SLP No.2204 of 2019. Vide order dated 01.02.2019, the Apex Court stayed the operation of the impugned judgment dated 05.09.2017. In the said matter, the Apex Court vide judgment dated 28.07.2022 set aside the impugned judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court.

4. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 became passed on 11.12.2019, besides subsequently an award became pronounced under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2013”).

5. The instant writ petition became remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 21.02.2024. The operative part of the said order is extracted hereinafter.

“Delay in filing application for substitution is condoned.

Abatement is set aside.

Application(s) for substitution is allowed.

Application(s) for deletion and addition are also allowed.

Application(s) for impleadment are allowed.

The issues involved with respect to initiation of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act has been decided by this Court in Deepak Aggarwal and Ors. Taking into consideration the said decision, this Court in Krishan Kumar and Ors. (Supra) was pleased to pass the following order:

“It reveals from the record that apart from the question raised regarding the scope and ambit of Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013 in reference to the trigger point in regard to initiation of the acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894 other questions raised are left open to be examined by the High Court.

In the light of the judgment of this Court of which reference has been made, at least the question which was decided under the impugned judgment by the High Court dated 05.09.2017 does not hold good and deserves to be set aside.

The appeal succeeds and accordingly allowed.

The judgment of the High Court dated 05.09.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. All other issues are left open for the parties to raise before the High Court.”

In view of the aforesaid order, all these appeals are allowed with particular reference to the issue decided alone. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration of all the other issues on merits that have been raised in the respective petitions in accordance with law.

Taking into consideration the long pendency of the proceedings, coupled with the subsequent developments that have occurred, we req