Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 842

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-26762-2016 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 02.04.2026

Krishan Kumar & Anr ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors ... Respondent(s)

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

Present : Mr. Ravinder Singh Saroha, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG Haryana for respondent Nos.1 and 4.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate, Mr. Siddhanth Arora,
Advocate, Ms. Ashna Singh, Advocate and
Ms. Sharvi Dadhwal, Advocate for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ravinder Singh Saroha
For the Respondents: Saurabh Mago, Ankur Mittal, Kushaldeep Kaur, Siddhanth Arora, Ashna Singh, Sharvi Dadhwal

Land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if the period of interim stay on dispossession is excluded from the five-year calculation or if compensation has been tendered and the landowner has sought reference for higher compensation.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - S. 4, S. 6, S. 18, S. 31(2) - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - S. 24(2) - Acquisition proceedings - Challenge on ground of lapse of five years without possession or payment - Supreme Court clarified in Indore Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal & Ors. that subsistence of interim stay orders must be excluded from the five-year computation - Where possession is evidenced by panchnama and compensation has been tendered or subjected to reference for enhancement, acquisition does not lapse - Previous challenge to acquisition on merits having been dismissed, same cannot be re-agitated.

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the acquisition of their land under the 1894 Act, claiming that since five years had elapsed since the award without physical possession or payment, the proceedings stood lapsed under S. 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The respondents contended that litigation, including a stay of dispossession, prevented earlier possession and that compensation had been processed or referred by the petitioners.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the possession was taken following the dismissal of previous litigation and that the interpretation of 'paid' and 'possession' under S. 24(2) conforms to the settled law in Indore Development Authority, where the exclusion of stay-order periods and the initiation of reference for higher compensation negate the plea of lapse.

Issues: Whether the land acquisition proceedings in question are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-payment of compensation and failure to take possession within five years of the award.

Ratio Decidendi: Acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act when possession has been taken (even if via panchnama) and where time lost in interim stay orders is excluded from the computation, or when the landowner has sought a reference for enhanced compensation.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. The prayer in the present writ petition is for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the notification dated 22.06.2006 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1894 Act’) and the declaration/notification dated 20.06.2007 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 6 of the 1894 Act and the order dated 29.11.2016 (Annexure P-9) vide which respondent No.2 has declined to release the land of the petitioners.

2. Briefly, the facts relevant to the present lis are that the petitioners are co-sharers in the land comprised in Khewat Nos.121/1 and 122, Khasra Nos.6//21/2 (3K-11M), 10/5 (8K-0M), 10/6/1 (1K-4M), 10/6/2 (6K-16M), 11/1 (6K-66M) situated within the revenue estate of village Badh Malik, Tehsil and District Sonepat. The notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was issued on 22.06.2006. Objections under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act were filed. Thereafter, declaration/notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued on 20.06.2007. As stated in the writ petition, the petitioners had filed CWP-16111-2007 titled as “Rajinder Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.” challenging the acquisition of the land on merits in which vide order dated 05.09.2007 the dispossession was stayed. The award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 28.11.2008. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 03.03.2011, which was challenged before the Supreme Court by filing a SLP which was also dismissed. As per the reply filed by the State, possession was taken vide rapat roznamcha No.645 dated 09.06.2011. It has further been averred in the writ petition that reference was also filed by the petitioners under Section 18 of the 1894 Act for enhancement of compensation, which stood decided. The petitioners also approached this Court by filing a Regular First Appeal (RFA), which was also allowed. A perusal of Annexure P-4 appended with the writ petition, which is an order passed in CR-5246-2012 dated 02.11.2015, reveals that the amount of ₹61,79,130/- on account of interest on ₹1,26,88,152/- was also deposited with the Reference Court on 26.10.2015. The present writ petition was filed averring therein that the period of 05 years had elapsed since the passing of the award on 28.11.2008, however, actual physical possession of the land had not been taken nor the amount of compensation had been paid to the petitioners and, therefore, the acquisition proceedings would be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2013 Act’). Initially, the present writ petition was allowed vide order dated 04.12.2017. The Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (HSIIDC) preferred a Special Leave Petition (C) No.8412 of 2019, which was converted into Civil Appeal No.3726 of 2024. The said appeal, alongwith the other connected matters, was allowed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 29.02.2024 and the matter was remitted back to the High Court to be decided on the issues other than the one covering the field in Indore Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal & Ors. [(2020) 8 SCC 129 = 2020 (4) RCR (Civil) 668].

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the physical possession of the land has still not been taken and the petitioners continue to be in possession. It is further the contention that the compensation has not been paid to the petitioners.

4. Per contra, the learned senior counsel for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 would contend that CWP-16111-2007 was preferred prior to the passing of the award. There was a stay of dispossession and therefore possession of the land of the petitioners could not be taken after the award was announced on 28.11.2008. On the dismissal of the said writ petition on 03.03.2011, possession was taken and rapat roznamcha No.645 dated 09.06.2011 w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 842

Land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if the period of interim stay on dispossession is excluded from the five-year calculation or if compensation has been tendered and the landowner has sought reference for higher compensation.

Cases Referred (1)