1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3538 OF 2023

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9911/2023)

(@ D. No. 27993/2020)

HARYANA INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION (HSIIDC) & ORS.

Appellant(s)

VERSUS

MAHABIR SINGH Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1.

Delay condoned.

2.

Leave granted.

3.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order dated 04.12.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab &

Haryana at Chandigarh passed in CWP No. 9673 of 2015, by which the

High Court has declared that the acquisition with respect to the

land in question is 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”) on the respondent-original writ

petitioner returning the amount of compensation already received,

the Haryana Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation

(HSIIDC) & Others have preferred the present Appeal.

4.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has

vehemently submitted that, in the present case, admittedly the

amount of compensation for the acquired land was received by the

original writ petitioner. It is submitted that not only that even

Digitally signed by R

Natarajan

Date: 2023.05.11

16:27:49 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

the enhanced amount of compensation was also received by them. It

is submitted that therefore, once the amount of compensation was

received by the landowner, as per the law laid down by this Court

in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors.

Etc. reported in 2020 (8) SCC 129, there shall not be any deemed

lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

5.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ

petitioner

is

not

disputing

that

the

amount

of

compensation/enhanced amount of compensation was received by the

landowner. However, he has submitted that the acquired land is not

put to use by the Department for which the same has been acquired

and the appellants are not able to use the land at all. Therefore,

he has prayed to reserve liberty in favour of the original writ

petitioner to submit an appropriate application before the

appropriate authority/State Government under Section 101A of the

2013 Act.

6.

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and

considering the fact that, in the present case, admittedly the

amount of compensation for the acquired land has been paid to the

original landowner and the same has been received by the original

landowner, applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of

Indore Development Authority (supra), thee shall not be any deemed

lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013.

7.

In that view of the matter, as such, the impugned judgment and

order declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in

question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act,

2013 is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set

3

aside and is, accordingly, quashed and set aside. However, liberty

is reserved in favour of the original writ petitioner – landowner

to move an appropriate application under Section 101A of the Act

2013 and as and when such an application is made, the same be

considered in accordance with law and on its own merits for which

we have not expressed anything in favour of the original writ

petitioner.

The present appeal is, accordingly, allowed. No costs.

...........................J

(M.R. SHAH)

...........................J

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)

New Delhi;

May 09, 2023

4

ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.4 SECTION IV-B

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 27993/2020