Land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession has been taken by the state or compensation has been tendered, even if possession remains with the landowner, as such landowners are effectively trespassers.

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notification dated 20.01.2003 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1894 Act’) and the notification dated 16.01.2004 (Annexure P-3) issued under Section 6 of the 1894 Act on the ground that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of the provisions of 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’). No challenge has been laid to the award dated 14.01.2006 though the present writ petition was filed on 05.04.2017.

2. The writ petition was initially allowed vide order dated 30.10.2017 holding that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The State of Haryana and others filed a Special Leave Petition (C) No.5428 of 2019, which was later converted into Civil Appeal No.2620 of 2024. The said appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 15.02.2024 and the matter was remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration in the light of the judgment in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal & Ors. [(2020) 8 SCC 129 = 2020 (4) RCR (Civil) 668]. It has further been clarified that all legal contentions are kept open to be raised by both the parties, as may be permissible. The only prayer in the present writ petition is that the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act on the ground that the possession was still with the petitioners and the compensation had not been received by them.

3. The solitary argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the land of similarly situated persons was held to have lapsed vide order dated 27.11.2014 passed in Civil Appeal No.3872 of 2010 titled as Ram Kishan & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (Annexure P-7).

4. Per contra the learned counsel for the State has referred to the short reply by way of an affidavit of Sh. Bharat Bhushan Gogia, Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Estate Department, Rohtak on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 to contend that in the present case the petitioners herein did not file any objections under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act. Further, there was no challenge laid by them to the acquisition prior to the filing of the present writ petition which was also only restricted to the plea that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Learned State counsel has further pointed out that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Kishan’s case (supra) would not come to the aid of the petitioners as they chose not to challenge the acquisition proceedings at that point of time. Learned State counsel has further pointed out that there is no ground of discrimination which has been raised in the present petition. Learned State counsel has further pointed out to para Nos.7 and 8 of the affidavit wherein it has been stated that vide rapat roznamcha No.356 dated 14.01.2006 the possession was taken and that the entire compensation of ₹42,45,43,182/- was tendered by the LAC Rohtak at the time of announcement of award dated 14.01.2006 and that after disbursal of the amount of ₹9,26,95,044/-, the remaining amount of ₹33,18,48,138/- is lying deposited in the account of the LAC and is available for disbursal.

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

6. In the present case the only issue which has been raised in the present writ petition is that the