1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2714-2715 OF 2021

(Arising out of SLP(C)Nos. 6411-6412 of 2021)

RAGHUBIR SINGH & ANR. ETC. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2717-2718 OF 2021

(Arising out of SLP(C)Nos. 14802-14803 of 2020)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2719 OF 2021

(Arising out of SLP(C)No. 7417 of 2021)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2720 OF 2021

(Arising out of SLP(C)No.6668 of 2021)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2721-2722 OF 2021

(Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.6628-6629 of 2021)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2723 OF 2021

(Arising out of SLP(C)No. 8852 of 2021)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2724 OF 2021

(Arising out of SLP(C)No. 15383 of 2020)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2725 OF 2021

(Arising out of SLP(C)No.10783 of 2021)

(Diary No. 3210 of 2021)

O R D E R

Civil Appeals

@ SLP(C)Nos. 6411-6412 of 2021

Leave granted.

Digitally signed by

NEETU KHAJURIA

Date: 2021.08.04

18:04:21 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

These appeals take exception to the judgment and

order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of

Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 01.10.2020 in CM

No. 9051 of 2020 in Writ Petition(C) No. 22241 of 2016

and C.M. No. 9059 of 2020 in Writ Petition (C) No. 22247

of 2016.

The question considered by the High Court is :

whether the writ petitioners can be allowed to withdraw

the writ petitions filed by them primarily seeking

declaration of lapsing of acquisition of their lands and

as an alternative relief to allow them to approach the

respondent-State of Haryana urging to invoke its power to

denotify the acquisition of lands in question under

Section 101A of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 (for Short, "2013 Act"), as

applicable to the State of Haryana?

It is not in dispute that such liberty was granted in

other cases by the coordinate Bench of the same High

Court. In the present cases, however, the High Court

relying on the dictum of the Constitution Bench of this

Court in the Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal

3

& Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, held that after

vesting of lands in the State consequent to taking over

possession thereof, the land owners cease to have any

right over the land in dispute, especially when the

acquisition proceedings have been upheld in the same or

earlier round of litigation. Resultantly, no liberty can

be given to such land owners to approach the State of

Haryana for denotifying acquisition in respect of their

lands after it had vested in the State. That would be in

violation of the settled legal position including the

spirit of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,

“1894 Act”), in particular Section 48 thereof.

While so observing, the Division Bench of the High

Court also took note of the fact that the coordinate

Benches of the High Court in some other cases had granted

such liberty to the land owners - to make representation

to the State of Haryana for invoking power under Section

101A of the 2013 Act, as applicable to the State of

Haryana. But then, the Court in the impugned judgment

went on to observe that it did not agree with that

approach. This observation of the High Court, in the

impugned judgment, has also been questioned before us by

learned counsel appearing for the land owners. They

4

would urge that, in such a situation, judicial discipline

warranted making reference to a larger Bench of the High

Court for an authoritative pronouncement.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we

have no hesitation in observing that the conclusion

reached by the Division Bench of the High Court in the

impugned judgment is not an accurate statement of law.

Indeed, the Constit