##PAGE1##

222 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CWP-7300-2014 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 01.04.2026

VIKRAM SINGH AND ANR …. Petitioners

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS …. Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI

Present : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Rohan Moudgil, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG Haryana for respondents No.1, 2, 5 and 6.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2013’).

2. Briefly the facts relevant to the present lis are that on 05.05.1997 a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1894’) was issued. Declaration under Section 6 of Act of 1894 was issued on 04.05.1998. The award was passed on 03.05.2000.

Thereafter, possession was taken vide rapat roznamcha No.237 dated

AMAN JAIN

2026.04.02 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

CWP-7300-2014 (O&M) -2-

08.01.2002. The acquisition came to be challenged by filing a writ petition being CWP-4735-2000 titled as ‘Rich Pal & Ors. Versus State of Haryana & Anr.’ which was dismissed vide order dated 19.09.2001. A writ petition being CWP-4075-2000 was also filed wherein the petitioners herein were also arrayed as petitioners No.6 and 7. The said writ petition was dismissed on

19.09.2001 in terms of the order passed by this Court in CWP-4735-2000.

3. Initially, the present writ petition was allowed vide order dated 11.12.2017. Aggrieved by the same the respondents filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The said Civil Appeal along with the other connected Civil Appeals as also the case titled State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Aalamgir & Ors. [(2025) 6 SCC 397], being the lead case, was allowed and the matter was remanded back to this Court for reconsidering the issues in view of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Indore Development Authority

vs. ManoharLal & Ors. [(2020) 8 SCC 129 = 2020 (4) RCR (Civil) 668]

4. As per the written statement filed by Sh. Satyabir Singh, Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate Gurgaon the possession was taken on 08.01.2002 vide rapat roznamcha No.237 dated 08.01.2002. The entire amount of compensation was ₹35,76,48,481.90 out of which the Land Acquisition Collector concerned has already disbursed an amount of ₹28,76,91,559 to the landowners and the rest of the compensation is not being paid to the landowners as they are not coming forward to receive the compensation amount and not tendering the documents regarding the

ownership.

AMAN JAIN

2026.04.02 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

CWP-7300-2014 (O&M) -3-

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully

gone through the records.

6. Their Lordships in the case of Indore Development Authority

(supra) held as under :

“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions

as under:

366.1. 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.

366.2. 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.

366.3. 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 proceeding