IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 22.01.2025 Pronounced on: 07.02.2025 TEJ RAM AND ANOTHER .....Petitioners 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 petitioners.

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 31.12.2013. The said notification was challenged by the petitioner through theirs instituting the instant writ petition. The instant petition came up for hearing before this Court, on 18.08.2015. 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.9443 of 2019. Vide order dated 05.04.2019, 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. 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.

“...........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........”

5. In the above regard, it is not disputed, that the notification as issued under Section 4 of the 'Act of 1894', was issued on 31.12.2013, and, when the date of issuance of the said notification, is prior to the coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2013”). Therefore, in terms of the verdict (supra), the acquisition proceedings became initiated as such under the 'Act of 1894'. Consequently, the subsequently issued declaration under Section 6 of the 'Act of 1894', even if the date of making of the said declaration, was subsequent to the coming into force of the 'Act of 2013'. Nonetheless, the trite factum of issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the 'Act of 1894', rather on a date, but prior to the coming into force of the 'Act of 2013', has the conspicuous relevance and import, thus for thereby even validating the subsequently issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894.

6. Furthermore, a perusal of reply on affidavit reveals that the subject award, thus could not be passed owing to the interim orders passed by this Court, which were further made absolute by this Court vide order dated 05.09.2017, wherebys the notification qua the petitioners was quashed in view of the full Bench judgment rendered in case titled as ‘Deepak Aggarwal and another Vs. State of Haryana and others’. Thereafter, the said judgment of the full Bench of this Court became set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as ‘HSIIDC Vs. Deepak Aggarwal (Supra) and the instant writ petition became remanded by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 21.02.2024, wherebys the Hon’ble Apex Court made a direction for mainta