125 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-17742-2016 (O&M) Date of Decision : 02.04.2026 Bhim Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI Present : Mr. Vikas Kumar Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Anil Dutt Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG Haryana for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.3. ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral) 1. The only prayer in the present petition was 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 (for short the ‘2013 Act’). The present petition was decided by this Court vide order dated 30.11.2016. Subsequently, the State of Haryana had filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court, the lead case being State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Aalamgir & Ors. [(2025) 6 SCC 397]. The Supreme Court vide judgment dated 18.03.2025 in the case of Aalamgir (supra) remanded the present petition alongwith other matters for reconsideration. ANKUR GOYAL 2026.04.06 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-17742-2016 -2- 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, states that the only prayer in the present petition was that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal & Ors. [(2020) 8 SCC 129 = 2020 (4) RCR (Civil) 668], he does not wish to press the present petition and prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the same with liberty to agitate the issue of interest on the amount of compensation, which is lying with the Land Acquisition Collector, in accordance with law. 3. Learned State counsel as well as learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 state that they have no objection. 4. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. ( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE 02.04.2026 jk ( RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI ) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO ANKUR GOYAL 2026.04.06 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment