Land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if either possession of the land has been taken or compensation has been tendered, as established by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal & Ors.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 10.08.2016 (Annexure P-15) and further for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to release the land of the petitioner and for setting aside the acquisition proceedings regarding the said land 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’).

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the petitioner is the owner in possession of the land measuring 431.20 sq. yards comprised in Khewat No.411, Khatauni No.563, Rectangle No.84, Killa Nos.18/1, 22, 23 and Khewat No.70, Khatauni No.123, Rectangle No.84, Killa Nos.12/2, 13/1, 18/3 and 19 situated within the revenue estate of Patti Kaisth Seth, Kaithal, District Kaithal. On 11.11.2002 a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘1894 Act’). The petitioner herein filed objections (Annexure P-2) under Section 5A of the 1894 Act stating therein that he has raised a boundary wall and pucca construction over his plot. It has been stated in the petition that the said objections were mechanically decided by respondent No.2. On 07.11.2003 the respondents have further issued a notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act. On 31.10.2005 respondent No.2 announced Award No.8 (Annexure P-4) and acquired total land measuring 82.80 acres including the land of the petitioner for the purpose of development and utilization of land as commercial, professional, institutional and for green belt adjoining Sectors 19 and 20, Kaithal. It has further been pleaded in the petition that the petitioner has constructed a residential portion and a boundary wall over the said plot. The petitioner is also stated to have served legal notice dated 15.02.2014 (Annexure P-11) to consider the case of the petitioner as per the 2013 Act, but no response was received. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP-14384-2014 for release of his house in which respondent No.2 has filed the reply by way of affidavit admitting in para 4 that the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner was ₹72,478/-, which is still pending. The petition (CWP-14384-2014) was decided vide order dated 23.03.2015 (Annexure P-13) whereby the petitioner was granted liberty to file a detailed representation and the respondents were directed to decide the same within four months. The petitioner filed representation dated 16.04.2015 (Annexure P-14) before respondent Nos.1 and 3. Respondent No.4 rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 10.08.2016 (Annexure P-15).

3. The present writ petition was filed in the year 2016 only on the ground that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Initially, the present writ petition was allowed vide order dated 14.12.2016 in terms of the order dated 27.10.2016 passed by this Court in CWP-17464-2007 titled ‘Satnam Singh & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.’ Aggrieved by the same the respondents herein filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The said Civil Appeal along with the other connected Civil Appeals as also the case titled as State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Aalamgir & Ors. [(2025) 6 SCC 397], being the lead case, was allowed and the matt