ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Notification dated 05.12.2005 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1894’) and for declaring that the acquisition proceedings to have lapsed in view 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. Initially, the present writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 04.12.2017 and the proceedings were deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. Aggrieved by the same the respondents herein filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The said Civil Appeal being CA No.2566 of 2024 (SLP (C) No.5889-2019) titled as ‘Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Versus Shiv Enterprises’ was disposed off vide order dated 16.02.2024. The matter was remanded to the High Court for deciding it afresh on the other issues in the light of the judgment in Indore Development Authority vs. ManoharLal & Ors. [(2020) 8 SCC 129 = 2020 (4) RCR (Civil) 668]

3. Briefly the facts relevant to the present lis are that the petitioner is said to be the owner in possession of Khewat No.3/3, Khatoni No.3, Mustil No.43, Killa No.3/2 (3-16), Killa No.4 (8-0) Killa No.5/1 (2-4) total measuring 14 Kanal, share of 25/280 total measuring 1 Kanal 5 Marla situated at Banipur Chowk in the revenue estate of Village Chirhara, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari. Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 (Annexure P-1) was issued on 05.12.2005. The purpose of the acquisition was for the extension of Industrial Growth Center, Bawal to be planned as an integrated complex for industrial, recreational and other public utilities. Declaration under Section 6 of Act of 1894 (Annexure P-2) was issued on 13.03.2006. The award was announced on 23/25.05.2006. Thereafter, possession was taken vide rapat roznamcha dated 07.07.2006. Admittedly, as stated in para No.8 of the writ petition, the amount of compensation for the land in question was taken by the petitioner. However, it is stated that the petitioner is ready to return the same.

4. The Supreme Court remanded the matter for a decision on other issues in the light of the judgment in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). On a perusal of the writ petition it is apparent that there is no other issue arising in the present case besides the one covered by the judgment in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). The only argument raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner is in physical possession of the land and is ready to return the enhanced compensation.

5. Per contra the learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would contend that the entire compensation, admittedly, stands paid to the petitioner admittedly. It is further contended that the possession was also taken and entry in the rapat roznamcha was duly made.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records.

7. 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) bet