CWP No. 13333 of 2016 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13333 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.10.2017 Gopal Singh Rathi and others .. Petitioners vs State of Haryana and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill Present: Mr. Karanvir Singh Khehar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, Mr. Shivendra Swaroop and Mr. Manoj Dhankar, Assistant Advocate Generals, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal, J. The petitioners have approached this Court claiming that acquisition of land in question has lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity, 'the 2013 Act'). Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that neither the compensation for the acquired land has been paid nor the physical possession of the land has been taken. The notifications for acquisition of the said land under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Varinder Singh 2017.11.15 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP No. 13333 of 2016 (O&M) -2- Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') were issued on 17.4.2002 and 10.4.2003, respectively. The award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 25.6.2004. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute the fact that the petitioners have not been paid the entire compensation for the acquired land, which according to him, is lying with the Land Acquisition Collector. The possession of the land was taken, though lying vacant. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act provides that acquisition of land would lapse in cases where award had been announced by the Collector five years prior to the enactment of the 2013 Act i. e. 1.1.2014, in case either the compensation for the acquired land has not been paid or the possession thereof had not been taken. In the case in hand, it is the admitted position on record that the petitioners have not been paid the amount of compensation for the acquired land. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in our view, the ingredients as laid down in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act having been satisfied, acquisition of land owned by the petitioners has lapsed. However, the State shall be at liberty to either initiate fresh proceedings for acquisition of land or negotiate with the landowners for purchasing/retaining the land in accordance with law, in case the land in question is required for completion of any project or otherwise. The petitioners shall maintain status quo regarding the land in question for a Varinder Singh 2017.11.15 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP No. 13333 of 2016 (O&M) -3- period of six months to enable the State to take decision. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 30.10.2017 (Gurvinder Singh Gill) vs Judge Whether speaking/ reasoned? Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Varinder Singh 2017.11.15 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh