CWP-25004-2016 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** CWP-25004-2016 Date of decision : 10.09.2026 Shamsher Singh and another ... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE DIVYA SHARMA Present: Mr.Amit Khatkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL) 1. Prayer made in the present writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus for setting aside the impugned order dated 13.07.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent no.4. Challenge is also to the notification dated 09.08.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as “1894 Act”) and also to the notification under Section 6 dated 08.08.2003 of 1894 Act and the award dated 05.08.2005. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners had purchased the land in question measuring 267.16 square yards comprised in DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.09.11 17:58 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-25004-2016 2 khasra no.106/9/1, Hadbast no.24 in the revenue estate of Patti Kaisth Seth, Kaithal, District Kaithal vide sale deed dated 30.01.2002. The respondent- State vide notification dated 09.08.2002 acquired the land which included the land of the petitioners for the public purpose for development and utilization of land as residential, commercial and institutional area of Sector 21, Kaithal. The petitioners had filed the objections under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act, which as per the case of the respondents, were duly considered. The notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued on 08.08.2003 and the award in the present case was announced on 05.08.2005. It is the case of the respondents that they have taken the possession of the land in question vide rapat roznamcha no.735 dated 05.08.2005 and total amount of compensation with respect to the entire amount has been assessed to be Rs.23,52,17,582/- which amount has already been tendered and out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.20,42,12,190/- has already been disbursed and rest of the amount which was tendered, is available for disbursement. 3. Admittedly, after a period of 9 years from the passing of the award, the petitioners had filed the first writ petition i.e., CWP-12785-2014 and in the said writ petition, a prayer was made that the proceedings had lapsed in view of the provision of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred to as “2013 Act”). The Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.03.2015 had disposed of the said writ petition by directing the respondent authorities to DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.09.11 17:58 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-25004-2016 3 consider the representation in a time bound manner. In the said order dated 23.03.2015, it was specifically noticed that the Division Bench had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. In pursuance of the said direction, a detailed speaking order dated 13.07.2016 was passed by the respondent authorities. In the said order, it was observed that the respondent authorities have taken the possession and the land in question had vested with the respondent authorities and also the fact that the land in question affected 10 nos. of 3 marla category plots. Specific observation with respect to tendering / deposit of entire compensation had also been made and the fact that the writ petition had been filed after a gap of 9 years from the date of passing of the award was also taken note of and accordingly, the representation of the petitioners was rejected. Challenging the above order as well as the notifications, the petitioners filed the present writ petition in the year 2016. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are still continuing to be in actual physical possession of the property in question and mere taking of symbolic possession by virtue of rapat cannot be stated to divest the petitioners of the property in question. It is submitted that no compensation has been taken by the petitioners and thus, the notifications deserve to be quashed and at any rate, the acquisition proceedings have elapsed. It is further submitted that the petitioners had earlier also filed a writ petition in the year 2014 which writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.03.2015 and the speaking order which has DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.09.11 17:58 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-25004-2016 4 been passed in pursuance of the said order is not in accordance with law and deserves to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches, inasmuch as, the award was passed in the year 2005 and even the first writ petition filed by the petitioners was after a period of 9 years from the date of the passing of the award and has stated that it is settled law that dead claims cannot be re-agitated, as in case the said writ petition is entertained, then, acquisition proceeding would never attain finality. It is submitted that the possession has also been taken vide rapat roznamcha no.735 dated 05.08.2005 and the entire compensation was tendered and thus, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others reported as (2020) 8 SCC 129. It is further submitted that as far as the land of the petitioners is concerned, the same affects 10 nos. of 3 marla category plots and thus, the same is necessarily required for the purpose of integrated plan. It is also submitted that since it is the own case of the petitioners that they had filed objections under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act, thus, they were very well aware of the acquisition proceedings and that in the earlier writ petition filed, the only prayer made was for lapsing of the proceedings which law conclusively stands against the petitioners after the passing of the judgment in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.09.11 17:58 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-25004-2016 5 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the opinion that the present writ petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed for the reasons which have been detailed hereinafter. 7. It is not in dispute that notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was issued on 09.08.2002 and notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued on 08.08.2003 and the award was passed on 05.08.2005. It is the case of the respondents that the respondents had taken possession by virtue of rapat roznamcha no.735 dated 05.08.2005 and even the entire amount of compensation has been tendered by the respondents. The first writ petition filed by the petitioners was after a period of 9 years from the passing of the award dated 05.08.2005 as the same was filed in the year 2014. The present writ petition has been filed in the year 2016. No plausible explanation has been given with respect to said long delay of 9/10 years. 8. Further the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in the case of Desraj and others Vs. State of Haryana and others reported as 2022(4) RCR (Civil) 298 had observed that in the cases in which challenge is made to the notifications vide which land is sought to be acquired, the concept of negating the challenge on account of the doctrine of delay and laches is well recognized. It was observed that even in case there were procedural irregularities or the status of the land at the time of initiation of the acquisition proceedings had not been taken into consideration in a proper manner, at the time of rejecting the objections filed under Section 5A of the 1894 Act, the landowner was not entitled to raise such pleas after DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.09.11 17:58 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-25004-2016 6 much delay, as such pleas have to be raised at the first instance and immediately when the cause of action arises to the landowner. It was further observed that in case the landowner chooses to remain silent and allows the State to proceed, then, apart from the fact that the case is to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, even the doctrine of acquiescence would come into play, which is sufficient to take away that right and any such plea is required to be rejected at the threshold. It was also observed that such silence would be conclusive evidence of the waiver of interest on the part of the litigant and that the doctrine of acquiescence acts as an estoppel which bars the litigant from complaining about the violation of his right. It was further observed that dead and stale claims cannot be revived at a belated stage. 9. The Co-ordinate Division Bench in the abovesaid judgment had made the said observations after taking into consideration the well known facet of law that whensoever there was conflict between public interest and private interest, the private interest has to make way for the public interest. The challenge thus made by the petitioners therein to the acquisition proceedings was rejected by taking into consideration the delay in challenging the same. In the said case it was the case of the petitioners therein that there was construction on the land in question and the said petitioners had even filed objections under Section 5A of the 1894 Act, yet the Co-ordinate Division Bench dismissed the case by observing that the cause of action for seeking release of the constructed portion had arisen at DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.09.11 17:58 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-25004-2016 7 the time of the notification under Section 6 and not after a period of several years and thus, in spite of the said two aspects being in favour of the petitioners therein, they were not granted any relief. The Division Bench in the abovesaid case also took into consideration the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) in which it had been observed that the dead and stale claims cannot be revived. 10. Even the earlier writ petition, which was filed by the petitioners in the year 2014 i.e., CWP-12785-2014 was filed in order to take the benefit of provision of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and it was prayed that the acquisition has lapsed. 11. This Court has seen that in a large number of cases of acquisition of land under the Act of 1894, which had been initiated decades earlier and in which, the award had also been passed and where the landowners either had filed a petition and had lost their case or had not filed any petition, suddenly sprung up after the coming into force of the new Act i.e. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in order to take benefit of Section 24(2) of the said Act which provides for lapsing of the acquisition proceedings in certain circumstances. In the said belated writ petitions, an endeavour has also been made to raise issues which had become stale and dead and which the landowners had acquiescence to or were barred from raising the same on the ground of delay and laches. Further, after the plea DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.09.11 17:58 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-25004-2016 8 under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act had been finally answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) against the landowners, the landowners instead of resting their case have now sought to raise pleas which were barred in view of the abovesaid principles and thus, endlessly engaged the Court with respect to settled acquisitions, bringing no finality to the acquisition proceedings and inordinately delaying the development of the area concerned. The present case is also one such case. The present petition is admittedly filed in the year 2016 challenging the award of the year 2005 and suffers from delay and laches and in view of the law laid down in the abovesaid judgment, the petitioners cannot be permitted to raise stale pleas. 12. The arguments raised on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that they are in actual physical possession and mere taking of symbolic possession would not vest the land in favour of the respondents-State and the fact that the petitioners have not taken the compensation would call for lapsing of the acquisition proceedings is misconceived and deserves to be rejected. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) had observed that word 'or' used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as 'nor' or as 'and' and the deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under the said provision could only be in a situation where the possession of land has not been taken nor DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.09.11 17:58 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-25004-2016 9 compensation has been paid and in other words, in case the possession has been taken but the compensation has not been paid there would be no lapse and similarly if compensation has been paid and possession has not been taken then also there would be no lapse. It was further observed that in case the obligation under Section 31 of the 1894 Act had not been fulfilled, then, interest under Section 34 of the said Act is to be granted and non-deposit of compensation in court does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had further specifically observed that the provision of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to a new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings and applies only to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the Act of 2013, i.e., 1.1.2014 and does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not allow the landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings. With respect to mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act, it was observed that drawing of panchnama i.e. inquest report/rapat roznamcha was valid proof of taking possession in land acquisition cases and subsequent to the same, the land would vest in the State and any re-entry or retaining the possession thereafter was unlawful and the person who continued in possession would be a trespasser. Para 363 of the said judgment is reproduced as under: - “363. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under: 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 Act of 2013, there is DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.09.11 17:58 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-25004-2016 10 no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of Act of 2013. 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 Act of 2013 under the Act of 1894 as if it has not been repealed. 3. The word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse. 4. The expression 'paid' in the main part of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of land holdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the Act of 2013 has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. 5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the Act of 1894, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non- DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.09.11 17:58 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-25004-2016 11 payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). Land owners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. 6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is to be treated as part of Section 24(2) not part of Section 24(1)(b). 7. The mode of taking possession under the Act of 1894 and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/ memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the Act of 1894, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2). 8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the Act of 2013 came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with concerned authority as on 1.1.2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years. 9. Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the Act of 2013, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition. Let the matters be placed before appropriate Bench for consideration on merits.” 14. It was also observed that when the State Government acquires DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.09.11 17:58 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-25004-2016 12 land and draws up a memorandum of taking possession, that amounts to taking physical possession of the land and that on the property which is acquired, the Government is not supposed to put some other person or the police force in possession to retain it and start cultivating it till the land is used by it for the purpose for which it has been acquired nor the Government is supposed to start residing or to physically occupy it once possession has been taken by drawing the inquest proceedings/rapat roznamcha. 15. With respect to interpretation of the word 'paid' used in Section 24(2) and 'deposited' used in the proviso to Section 24(2) detailed observations were made and it was observed that the deposit in treasury in place of deposit in court causes no prejudice to the landowner or any other stakeholder as their interest is adequately safeguarded by the provisions contained in Section 34 of the 1894 Act, which ensures higher rate of interest than any other Government securities and the said money is safe and can be made available for disbursement to the landowners. In para 228, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had even taken into consideration the standing Order No.28 which was issued in 1909 by the State of Punjab, which provided five modes of payment and it was further observed that the said rules and the standing orders are binding on the concerned Authorities. Paras 228 and 230 of the said judgment is reproduced herein below: - “228. Standing Order No.28 was issued in 1909 by the State of Punjab and was applicable to Delhi also, which provided five modes of payment in para 74 and 75 thus: DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.09.11 17:58 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-25004-2016 13 “74. Methods of making payments.—There are five methods of making payments: (1) By direct payments, see Para 75(I) infra (2) By order on treasury, see Para 75(II) infra (3) By money order, see Para 75(III) infra (4) By cheque, see Para 75(IV) infra (5) By deposit in a treasury, see Para 75(V) infra .......... xxx xxx xxx xxx 230. Deposit in treasury in place of deposit in court causes no prejudice to the landowner or any other stakeholder as their interest is adequately safeguarded by the provisions contained in Section 34 of the Act of 1894, as it ensures higher rate of interest than any other Government securities. Their money is safe and credited in the earmarked quantified amount and can be made available for disbursement to him/them. There is no prejudice caused and every infraction of law would not vitiate the act.” 16. It is thus apparent that the entire law with respect to possession, payment of compensation, vesting and non-revival of stale and time barred claims had been crystallized in the above-said judgment. Since in the present case, the respondents have executed a rapat roznamcha and have also tendered the entire compensation, thus, the law laid down in the above said judgment would apply on all fours and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the said ground. 17. It would be relevant to note that it is the specific case of the respondents that the land in question is required by the respondents for public purpose as, as per the published draft development plan 2031 AD, Kaithal, the land in question affects 10 nos. of 3 marla residential plot in DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.09.11 17:58 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-25004-2016 14 Sector 21, Kaithal. Thus, the said land is necessary for integrated planning and for achieving the public purpose for which, the same was acquired. The said aspect could not be rebutted before this Court. 18. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, finding no merit, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE (DIVYA SHARMA) JUDGE September 10, 2026. Davinder Kumar Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.09.11 17:58 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment