CWP-12904 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Inderjeet Singh and others State of Haryana and others CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Yashjot Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate and Ms. Manprabhleen Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. DEEPAK SIBAL Relying on Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Res Act, 2013 (for short Court seeking land detailed question’), has lapsed passing of the Award dated 22.11.2006, acquired land same has been 2. Through the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent dismissal of the present petition is sought not only on the ground of delay and also on merits because it has been stated therein that after determining the compensation payable for the land in question, the same was deposited 12904 of 2025 (O&M) Sr. No.121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-12904 of 2025 Date of Decision : Inderjeet Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Yashjot Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate and Ms. Manprabhleen Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. *** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) Relying on Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Res 2013 (for short ‘the 2013 Act’), the petitioners have seeking therein a declaration that the acquisition of the petitioners’ in the Head note of the petition has lapsed because even after about 19 years from th the Award dated 22.11.2006, neither has been taken by the respondents nor compensation same has been paid to the petitioners. Through the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent dismissal of the present petition is sought not only on the ground of delay and also on merits because it has been stated therein that after determining the compensation payable for the land in question, the same was deposited IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 12904 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 21.08.2025 …Petitioners …Respondents DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Yashjot Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate and Ms. Manprabhleen Kaur, Advocate, Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. Relying on Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act’), the petitioners have petitioned this declaration that the acquisition of the petitioners’ in the Head note of the petition (for short ‘the land in because even after about 19 years from the date of neither the possession of the has been taken by the respondents nor compensation for the Through the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-State, dismissal of the present petition is sought not only on the ground of delay and also on merits because it has been stated therein that after determining the compensation payable for the land in question, the same was deposited VANDANA 2025.09.01 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12904 of 2025 with the concerned Land the possession of the land in question was taken by the State on 22.11.2006 through Rapat Roznamcha No.171 dated 22.11.2006 over to the beneficiary department (for short ‘HSVP’) for stands recorded in the rapat roznamcha 3. No replication has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and able assistance 5. T of the Land Acquisition Act, land in Gurgaon acquired by the State institutional area objections under Section 5 rejected. Accordingl Section 6 of the 1894 Act award No.20 dated 22.11.2006 compensation determined and on the same day the determined compens deposited with the concerned Land Acquisition Collector. vide Rapat Roznamcha land was taken same was handed over to 6. In the above have approached this Court nearly 20 years 12904 of 2025 (O&M) with the concerned Land Acquisition Collector the possession of the land in question was taken by the State on 22.11.2006 through Rapat Roznamcha No.171 dated 22.11.2006 over to the beneficiary department i.e. Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (for short ‘HSVP’) for its development on recorded in the rapat roznamcha. No replication has been filed. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and ance the record of the case has been perused Through Notification dated 27.11.2003 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the 1894 Act’) land in Gurgaon, which included the land in question by the State for the development of area in Sector 48, Gurgaon. ons under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act ccordingly, through Notification dated 24.11.2004 Section 6 of the 1894 Act, the State acquired the petitioners’ land award No.20 dated 22.11.2006 compensation determined and on the same day the determined compens deposited with the concerned Land Acquisition Collector. Rapat Roznamcha No.171, the possession of the petitioners’ taken over by the State and on 04.09.2013 same was handed over to the HSVP for its development. In the above facts, which remain have approached this Court, challenging the acquisition 20 years from the date of passing of the award. Acquisition Collector. It is further submitted that the possession of the land in question was taken by the State on 22.11.2006 through Rapat Roznamcha No.171 dated 22.11.2006 and was also handed Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran on 04.09.2013 which fact also Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and with their the record of the case has been perused. hrough Notification dated 27.11.2003, issued under Section 4 (for short, ‘the 1894 Act’) large tract of the land in question, was intended to be development of a residential, commercial and The petitioners filed their Act which were considered and through Notification dated 24.11.2004, issued under State acquired the petitioners’ land. Through award No.20 dated 22.11.2006 compensation for the land in question was determined and on the same day the determined compensation was also deposited with the concerned Land Acquisition Collector. On 22.11.2006, the possession of the petitioners’ acquired by the State and on 04.09.2013, vide rapat No.94, the HSVP for its development. which remain undisputed, the petitioners acquisition of their land after the date of passing of the award. This inordinate delay VANDANA 2025.09.01 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12904 of 2025 remains unexplained. Therefore petition deserves dismissal. the following observations made by the Development Authori “359. We are of the considered opinion that be used to revive dead and stale claims and concluded cases. They cannot be inquired into 24 invalidate the judgments and orders of the Court, where rights and claims have been lost and negatived. There is no revival of the barred claims by operation of law. Thus, stale and dead claims cannot be permitted to be canvassed on the pretext of enactment of payment has not been made, but possession has been taken, the remedy lies elsewhere if the case is not covered by the proviso. It is the Court to consider it independently not under 24(2) 7. The petitioners of any relief as they petition, they have evidencing taking and thereafter handing development. Further compensation, deposited on 22.11.2006 itself, Acquisition Collector for the petitioners. 8. Even on merits, the petition unrebutted that, through entries made in the revenue record, of the land in question was taken by the State way back in the year 2006 and that the compensation the concerned Land Acquisition Collector in the year 2006 itself. It is the 12904 of 2025 (O&M) remains unexplained. Therefore, on the ground of delay and laches, this petition deserves dismissal. In this regard, reference following observations made by the Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others “359. We are of the considered opinion that be used to revive dead and stale claims and concluded cases. They cannot be inquired into within the purview of 24 of the Act of 2013. The provisions of invalidate the judgments and orders of the Court, where rights and claims have been lost and negatived. There is no revival of the barred claims by operation of law. Thus, stale and dead claims cannot be permitted to be canvassed on the pretext of enactment of Section 24. In exceptional cases, when in fact, the payment has not been made, but possession has been taken, the remedy lies elsewhere if the case is not covered by the proviso. It is the Court to consider it independently not under 24(2) of the Act of 2013.” The petitioners have further disentitle as they having withheld material , they have not disclosed the entries taking over of possession of the land in question by and thereafter handing over the same to the beneficiary department . Further, they have also not disclosed the , determined through award dated 22.11.2006, was deposited on 22.11.2006 itself, by the State with the concerned Land Acquisition Collector for onward disbursement the petitioners. Even on merits, the petitioners have no case as unrebutted that, through entries made in the revenue record, of the land in question was taken by the State way back in the year 2006 the compensation, in lieu of its acquisition, the concerned Land Acquisition Collector in the year 2006 itself. It is the ground of delay and laches, this eference can usefully be made to following observations made by the Supreme Court in “Indore ty v. Manoharlal and Others”, (2020) 8 SCC 129: “359. We are of the considered opinion that Section 24 cannot be used to revive dead and stale claims and concluded cases. within the purview of Section of the Act of 2013. The provisions of Section 24 do not invalidate the judgments and orders of the Court, where rights and claims have been lost and negatived. There is no revival of the barred claims by operation of law. Thus, stale and dead claims cannot be permitted to be canvassed on the pretext of . In exceptional cases, when in fact, the payment has not been made, but possession has been taken, the remedy lies elsewhere if the case is not covered by the proviso. It is the Court to consider it independently not under section further disentitled themselves to the grant having withheld material facts from this Court. In their made in the revenue record possession of the land in question by the State to the beneficiary department for its not disclosed the fact that the determined through award dated 22.11.2006, was duly by the State with the concerned Land onward disbursement to the land owners including ers have no case as it remains unrebutted that, through entries made in the revenue record, the possession of the land in question was taken by the State way back in the year 2006 in lieu of its acquisition, was also deposited with the concerned Land Acquisition Collector in the year 2006 itself. It is the VANDANA 2025.09.01 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12904 of 2025 petitioners who chose not to withdraw the deposited compensation. For this inaction on their part, the State cannot be held responsible. 10. In the light of the afore facts petitioners’ land under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act of ours finds support from the following Court in Indore Development “99. of the words used in have been prescribed. Thus, even if one condition is satisfied, there is no lapse, and this logically read with the provisions of other interpretation would entail illogical results. That apart, if the rule of interpretation with respect to two conditions qualified by “or” is used, then “or” should be read as “nor” or “and”. Brown & Co. v. Harrison (supra), ruled thus, about the interpretation of two negative conditions connected by the word "or": “ have a conjunctive sense. It is generally disjunctive, but it may be plain from the collation of words that it is meant in a conjunctive sense, and certainly where the use of the word as a disjunctive leads to repugnance or absurdity, it is q the ordinary principles of construction adopted by the court to give the word a conjunctive use. Here, it is quite plain that the word leads to an absurdity, because the contention put forward by the shipowners in this matter amounts to this, a said, that, if a shipowner himself breaks open a case and steals the contents of it, he is exempted from liability under r 2(q) if none of his servants stole the part of the case or broke it open. That seems to me to be a plain absurdity. In addi there is a repugnancy because it is plainly repugnant to the second part of r 2(q). Therefore I say no more about that.” XXX 101. India and Ors.77 that if there are two negative conditions, the expression “or” has to be read as conjunctive and conditions of both the clauses must be fulfilled. It was observed: “(13) It is clear that i then the condition of one of the clauses only need be fulfilled. In such a case, "or" really means "either" "or." In the Shorter Oxford Dictionary one of the meanings of the word "or" is given as "A particle co phrases or clauses between which there is an alternative." It is also there stated, "The alternative expressed by “or” is 12904 of 2025 (O&M) petitioners who chose not to withdraw the deposited compensation. For this inaction on their part, the State cannot be held responsible. In the light of the afore facts petitioners’ land under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act of ours finds support from the following observations made by the Supreme Indore Development Authority’s case 99. In this Court’s considered view, as regards the collation of the words used in Section 24(2) have been prescribed. Thus, even if one condition is satisfied, there is no lapse, and this logically read with the provisions of Section 24 other interpretation would entail illogical results. That apart, if the rule of interpretation with respect to two conditions qualified by “or” is used, then “or” should be read as “nor” or “and”. Brown & Co. v. Harrison (supra), ruled thus, about the interpretation of two negative conditions connected by the word "or": …..I think it quite commonly and gram have a conjunctive sense. It is generally disjunctive, but it may be plain from the collation of words that it is meant in a conjunctive sense, and certainly where the use of the word as a disjunctive leads to repugnance or absurdity, it is q the ordinary principles of construction adopted by the court to give the word a conjunctive use. Here, it is quite plain that the word leads to an absurdity, because the contention put forward by the shipowners in this matter amounts to this, a said, that, if a shipowner himself breaks open a case and steals the contents of it, he is exempted from liability under r 2(q) if none of his servants stole the part of the case or broke it open. That seems to me to be a plain absurdity. In addi there is a repugnancy because it is plainly repugnant to the second part of r 2(q). Therefore I say no more about that.” XXX XXX XXX 101. In M/s. Ranchhoddas Atmaram and Anr. v. The Uni India and Ors.77, a Constitution Bench of this Court observed that if there are two negative conditions, the expression “or” has to be read as conjunctive and conditions of both the clauses must be fulfilled. It was observed: “(13) It is clear that if the words form an affirmative sentence, then the condition of one of the clauses only need be fulfilled. In such a case, "or" really means "either" "or." In the Shorter Oxford Dictionary one of the meanings of the word "or" is given as "A particle co-ordinating two (or more) words, phrases or clauses between which there is an alternative." It is also there stated, "The alternative expressed by “or” is petitioners who chose not to withdraw the deposited compensation. For this inaction on their part, the State cannot be held responsible. In the light of the afore facts no case for release of the petitioners’ land under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is made out. This view observations made by the Supreme ’s case (supra). considered view, as regards the collation Section 24(2), two negative conditions have been prescribed. Thus, even if one condition is satisfied, there is no lapse, and this logically flows from the Act of 1894 Section 24 of the Act of 2013. Any other interpretation would entail illogical results. That apart, if the rule of interpretation with respect to two negative conditions qualified by “or” is used, then “or” should be read as “nor” or “and”. Brown & Co. v. Harrison (supra), ruled thus, about the interpretation of two negative conditions …..I think it quite commonly and grammatically can have a conjunctive sense. It is generally disjunctive, but it may be plain from the collation of words that it is meant in a conjunctive sense, and certainly where the use of the word as a disjunctive leads to repugnance or absurdity, it is quite within the ordinary principles of construction adopted by the court to give the word a conjunctive use. Here, it is quite plain that the word leads to an absurdity, because the contention put forward by the shipowners in this matter amounts to this, as my Lord said, that, if a shipowner himself breaks open a case and steals the contents of it, he is exempted from liability under r 2(q) if none of his servants stole the part of the case or broke it open. That seems to me to be a plain absurdity. In addition to that, there is a repugnancy because it is plainly repugnant to the second part of r 2(q). Therefore I say no more about that.” XXX Ranchhoddas Atmaram and Anr. v. The Union of , a Constitution Bench of this Court observed that if there are two negative conditions, the expression “or” has to be read as conjunctive and conditions of both the clauses must be fulfilled. It was observed: f the words form an affirmative sentence, then the condition of one of the clauses only need be fulfilled. In such a case, "or" really means "either" "or." In the Shorter Oxford Dictionary one of the meanings of the word "or" is inating two (or more) words, phrases or clauses between which there is an alternative." It is also there stated, "The alternative expressed by “or” is VANDANA 2025.09.01 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12904 of 2025 emphasised by prefixing the first member or adding after the last, the associated adv. EITHER." So, even "or" alone creates an alternative. If, therefore, the sentence before us is an affirmative one, then we get two alternatives, any one of which may be chosen without the other being considered at all. In such a case it must be held that a exceeding Rs. 1,000 can be imposed. (14) If, however, the sentence is a negative one, then the position becomes different. The word "or" between the two clauses would then spread the negative influence over the clause following it. This rule of gra conditions of both the clauses must be fulfilled and the result would be that the penalty that can be imposed can never exceed Rs. 1,000. (15) The question then really comes to this: Is the sentence before us a ne the sentence is an affirmative sentence. The substance of the sentence is that a certain person shall be liable to a penalty. That 77 AIR 1961 SC 935 therefore not neg Thus, for lapse of acquisition proceedings initiated under the old law, under i.e., neither physical possession i paid, the land acquisition proceedings lapse. Several decisions were cited at Bar to say that "or" has been treated as "and" and vice versa. Much depends upon the context. Yashpal & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.78 expression "established or incorporated" was read as "established and incorporated." effect to the clear intention of was read as "and." XXX 203. The word “paid” in cannot include in its ambit the expression "deposited" in court. Deposit cannot be Deposit is on being prevented from payment. However, in case there is a tender of the amount that is to mean amount is made available to the landowner that would be a discharge of the obligation to make the payment an cannot be penalised for the default in making the payment. In default to deposit in court, the liability is to make the payment of interest under 32 counsel to say that valuable rights inhere, in the event of deposit with court, thus mak 31 Government securities, or seeking alternative lands, in lieu of compensation, etc. Such deposits, cannot fetch higher interest than the15 per cent contemplated under pari materia to materia to 12904 of 2025 (O&M) emphasised by prefixing the first member or adding after the last, the associated adv. EITHER." So, even "or" alone creates an alternative. If, therefore, the sentence before us is an affirmative one, then we get two alternatives, any one of which may be chosen without the other being considered at all. In such a case it must be held that a exceeding Rs. 1,000 can be imposed. (14) If, however, the sentence is a negative one, then the position becomes different. The word "or" between the two clauses would then spread the negative influence over the clause following it. This rule of grammar is not in dispute. In such a case the conditions of both the clauses must be fulfilled and the result would be that the penalty that can be imposed can never exceed Rs. 1,000. (15) The question then really comes to this: Is the sentence before us a negative or an affirmative one? It seems to us that the sentence is an affirmative sentence. The substance of the sentence is that a certain person shall be liable to a penalty. That 77 AIR 1961 SC 935 is a positive concept. The sentence is therefore not negative in its import.” (emphasis supplied) Thus, for lapse of acquisition proceedings initiated under the old law, under Section 24(2) if both steps have not been taken, i.e., neither physical possession i paid, the land acquisition proceedings lapse. Several decisions were cited at Bar to say that "or" has been treated as "and" and vice versa. Much depends upon the context. Yashpal & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.78 expression "established or incorporated" was read as "established and incorporated." effect to the clear intention of the Legislature, the word "or" was read as "and." XXX XXX XXX 203. The word “paid” in Section 31(1) cannot include in its ambit the expression "deposited" in court. Deposit cannot be said to be payment made to landowners. Deposit is on being prevented from payment. However, in case there is a tender of the amount that is to mean amount is made available to the landowner that would be a discharge of the obligation to make the payment an cannot be penalised for the default in making the payment. In default to deposit in court, the liability is to make the payment of interest under Section 34 32 and 33 (which had been relied upon by the landowners’ counsel to say that valuable rights inhere, in the event of deposit with court, thus mak 31 mandatory) provide for investing amounts in the Government securities, or seeking alternative lands, in lieu of compensation, etc. Such deposits, cannot fetch higher interest han the15 per cent contemplated under pari materia to Section 80 of Act of 2013. materia to section 80 of Act of 2013 in which also the similar emphasised by prefixing the first member or adding after the last, the associated adv. EITHER." So, even without "either," "or" alone creates an alternative. If, therefore, the sentence before us is an affirmative one, then we get two alternatives, any one of which may be chosen without the other being considered at all. In such a case it must be held that a penalty exceeding Rs. 1,000 can be imposed. (14) If, however, the sentence is a negative one, then the position becomes different. The word "or" between the two clauses would then spread the negative influence over the mmar is not in dispute. In such a case the conditions of both the clauses must be fulfilled and the result would be that the penalty that can be imposed can never (15) The question then really comes to this: Is the sentence gative or an affirmative one? It seems to us that the sentence is an affirmative sentence. The substance of the sentence is that a certain person shall be liable to a penalty. is a positive concept. The sentence is ative in its import.” (emphasis supplied) Thus, for lapse of acquisition proceedings initiated under the if both steps have not been taken, i.e., neither physical possession is taken, nor compensation is paid, the land acquisition proceedings lapse. Several decisions were cited at Bar to say that "or" has been treated as "and" and vice versa. Much depends upon the context. In Prof. Yashpal & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.78, the expression "established or incorporated" was read as "established and incorporated." In R.M.D.C (supra), to give the Legislature, the word "or" XXX Section 31(1) to the landowner cannot include in its ambit the expression "deposited" in court. said to be payment made to landowners. Deposit is on being prevented from payment. However, in case there is a tender of the amount that is to mean amount is made available to the landowner that would be a discharge of the obligation to make the payment and in that event such a person cannot be penalised for the default in making the payment. In default to deposit in court, the liability is to make the payment of Act of 1894. Sections (which had been relied upon by the landowners’ counsel to say that valuable rights inhere, in the event of deposit with court, thus making deposit under Section mandatory) provide for investing amounts in the Government securities, or seeking alternative lands, in lieu of compensation, etc. Such deposits, cannot fetch higher interest han the15 per cent contemplated under Section 34, which is of Act of 2013. Section 34 is pari of Act of 2013 in which also the similar VANDANA 2025.09.01 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12904 of 2025 rate of interest has been specified. Even if the amount is not deposited in Reference Court nor with the treasury as against the if Collector has been prevented to make the payment due to exigencies provided in However, in case the dep the person interested, the liability to pay the interest under Reference Court is taken to be mandatory, in tha interest has to follow as specified in acquisition proceeding cannot lapse due to non XXX “244. possession of land may be taken by the State Government after passing of an award and thereupon land vest free from all encumbrances in the State Government. Similar are the provisions made in the case of urgency word “possession” has been used in the Act of 1894, whereas in possession” for taking over the possession is not enough when the actual physical possession remained with the landowner and 24(2) possession in any other form. When the State has acquired the land and award has been passed, land vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances. The act of vesting of the land in the State is with possession, any the possession, thereafter, has to be treated as trespasser and has no right to possess the land which vests in the State free from all encumbrances. 245. difference between taking possessio and the expression “physical possession” used in 24(2) Act of 1894, by taking the possession meant posse Act of 2013 always amounted to taking over physical possession of the land. When the State Government acquires land and drawns up a memorandum of taking possession, that amounts to taking the physical large chunk of property or otherwise 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 purp acquired. The Government is not supposed to start residing or to physically occupy it once possession has been taken by drawing the inquest proceedings for obtaining possession thereof. Thereafter, if any further retaining of land entry is made on the land or someone starts cultivation on the open land or starts residing in the outhouse, etc., is deemed to be the trespasser on land which in possession of the State. The 12904 of 2025 (O&M) rate of interest has been specified. Even if the amount is not deposited in Reference Court nor with the treasury as against the name of the person interested who is entitled to receive it, if Collector has been prevented to make the payment due to exigencies provided in Section 31(2) However, in case the deposit is made without tendering it to the person interested, the liability to pay the interest under section 34, shall continue. Even assuming deposit in the Reference Court is taken to be mandatory, in tha interest has to follow as specified in acquisition proceeding cannot lapse due to non XXX XXX 244. Section 16 of the Act of 1894 provided that possession of land may be taken by the State Government after passing of an award and thereupon land vest free from all encumbrances in the State Government. Similar are the provisions made in the case of urgency word “possession” has been used in the Act of 1894, whereas in Section 24(2) of Act of 2013, the expression “physical possession” is used. It is submitted that drawing of panchnama for taking over the possession is not enough when the actual physical possession remained with the landowner and 24(2) requires actual physical possession to be taken, not the possession in any other form. When the State has acquired the land and award has been passed, land vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances. The act of vesting of the land in the State is with possession, any the possession, thereafter, has to be treated as trespasser and has no right to possess the land which vests in the State free from all encumbrances. 245. The question which arises whether there is any difference between taking possessio and the expression “physical possession” used in 24(2). As a matter of fact, what was contemplated under the Act of 1894, by taking the possession meant possession of the land. Taking over the possession under the Act of 2013 always amounted to taking over physical possession of the land. When the State Government acquires land and drawns up a memorandum of taking possession, that amounts to taking the physical possession of the land. On the large chunk of property or otherwise 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 purp acquired. The Government is not supposed to start residing or to physically occupy it once possession has been taken by drawing the inquest proceedings for obtaining possession thereof. Thereafter, if any further retaining of land entry is made on the land or someone starts cultivation on the open land or starts residing in the outhouse, etc., is deemed to be the trespasser on land which in possession of the State. The rate of interest has been specified. Even if the amount is not deposited in Reference Court nor with the treasury as against name of the person interested who is entitled to receive it, if Collector has been prevented to make the payment due to Section 31(2), interest to be paid. osit is made without tendering it to the person interested, the liability to pay the interest , shall continue. Even assuming deposit in the Reference Court is taken to be mandatory, in that case too interest has to follow as specified in section 34. However, acquisition proceeding cannot lapse due to non-deposit. XXX of the Act of 1894 provided that possession of land may be taken by the State Government after passing of an award and thereupon land vest free from all encumbrances in the State Government. Similar are the provisions made in the case of urgency in Section 17(1). The word “possession” has been used in the Act of 1894, whereas of Act of 2013, the expression “physical is used. It is submitted that drawing of panchnama for taking over the possession is not enough when the actual physical possession remained with the landowner and Section ossession to be taken, not the possession in any other form. When the State has acquired the land and award has been passed, land vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances. The act of vesting of the land in the State is with possession, any person retaining the possession, thereafter, has to be treated as trespasser and has no right to possess the land which vests in the State free The question which arises whether there is any difference between taking possession under the Act of 1894 and the expression “physical possession” used in Section . As a matter of fact, what was contemplated under the Act of 1894, by taking the possession meant only physical ssion of the land. Taking over the possession under the Act of 2013 always amounted to taking over physical possession of the land. When the State Government acquires land and drawns up a memorandum of taking possession, that possession of the land. On the large chunk of property or otherwise 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. The Government is not supposed to start residing or to physically occupy it once possession has been taken by drawing the inquest proceedings for obtaining possession thereof. Thereafter, if any further retaining of land or any re- entry is made on the land or someone starts cultivation on the open land or starts residing in the outhouse, etc., is deemed to be the trespasser on land which in possession of the State. The VANDANA 2025.09.01 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12904 of 2025 possession of trespasser always inures for the benefi real owner that is the State Government in the case. XXX 256. and the statute has provided under Act of 1894 that once possession is taken, absolute vesting occurred. It is an indefeasible right and vesting is with possession thereafter. The vesting specified under takes place after various steps, such as, notification under under The statutory provision of vesting of property absolutely free from all encumbrances has to be accorde the possession vests in the State but all other encumbrances are also removed forthwith. The title of the landholder ceases and the state becomes the absolute owner and in possession of the property. Thereafter there is no control o over the property. He cannot have any animus to take the property and to control it. Even if he has retained the possession or otherwise trespassed upon it after possession has been taken by the of trespasser en owner 11. In the light of the above discussion, th dismissal not only petitioners have n also for the reason that it lacks merit. 12. Dismissed. August 21, 202 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable 12904 of 2025 (O&M) possession of trespasser always inures for the benefi real owner that is the State Government in the case. XXX XXX XXX 256. Thus, it is apparent that vesting is with possession and the statute has provided under Act of 1894 that once possession is taken, absolute vesting occurred. It is an indefeasible right and vesting is with possession thereafter. The vesting specified under takes place after various steps, such as, notification under section 4, declaration under under section 9, award under section 11 The statutory provision of vesting of property absolutely free from all encumbrances has to be accorde the possession vests in the State but all other encumbrances are also removed forthwith. The title of the landholder ceases and the state becomes the absolute owner and in possession of the property. Thereafter there is no control o over the property. He cannot have any animus to take the property and to control it. Even if he has retained the possession or otherwise trespassed upon it after possession has been taken by the State, he is a trespasser and such possessio of trespasser ensures for his benefit and on behalf of the owner”. In the light of the above discussion, th dismissal not only the ground of delay and laches and have not knocked the doors of this Court with clean hands but also for the reason that it lacks merit. Dismissed. (DEEPAK SIBAL JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE , 2025 speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No possession of trespasser always inures for the benefit of the real owner that is the State Government in the case. XXX Thus, it is apparent that vesting is with possession and the statute has provided under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act of 1894 that once possession is taken, absolute vesting occurred. It is an indefeasible right and vesting is with possession thereafter. The vesting specified under section 16, takes place after various steps, such as, notification , declaration under section 6, notice section 11 and then possession. The statutory provision of vesting of property absolutely free from all encumbrances has to be accorded full effect. Not only the possession vests in the State but all other encumbrances are also removed forthwith. The title of the landholder ceases and the state becomes the absolute owner and in possession of the property. Thereafter there is no control of the land-owner over the property. He cannot have any animus to take the property and to control it. Even if he has retained the possession or otherwise trespassed upon it after possession has State, he is a trespasser and such possession ures for his benefit and on behalf of the In the light of the above discussion, the petition deserves the ground of delay and laches and because the knocked the doors of this Court with clean hands but DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2025.09.01 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document