IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 06.04.2026 Chandan Lal & Ors ... Appellant(s)

Versus S tate of Haryana & Ors ... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI Present: Mr. Pankaj Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners (through hybrid mode).

Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG Haryana for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.3.

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 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 petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 5. 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. It was further averred in the reply that the entire amount of compensation was lying deposited in the account of the LAC and was available for payment immediately on demand of landowners.

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 proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.

366.4. The expression “paid” in the m