CWP-26543-2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-26543-2014 Reserved on: 06.03.2025 Pronounced on: 21.04.2025 ARVIND KHARITA .....Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Argued by: Mr. D.V. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Balpreet Kaur Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana with Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Addl. A.G. Haryana, Mr. P.P. Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana, Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana and Mr. Karan Jindal, Assistant A.G. Haryana. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate, Ms. Gurcharan Kaur, Advocate Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate, Ms. Saanvi Singla, Advocate and Ms. Sharvi Dadhwal, Advocate for the respondent - HSVP. **** SURESHWAR THAKUR , J. 1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner asks for relief qua de-notification or for release of the petition lands, thus on the ground, that the notification(s) Annexure P-1, and, Annexure P-2, as became respectively issued on 15.03.2004, and, 14.03.2005, thus in terms of Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1894’), rather inviting the mandate of Section ITHLESH KUMAR 2025.04.23 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-26543-2014 -2- 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2013'), whereby there occurs thus lapsing of the earlier launched acquisition proceedings under the 'Act of 1894'. 2. The factual background of the case are that the petitioner is owner in possession of land measuring 5 kanal 11 marlas, situated in the revenue estate of Tehsil and District Hisar whereons, the petitioner has constructed a residential house. 3. Earlier this land was notified for acquisition on 19.05.1992 by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. However, objections were filed under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 and the subject land was released because of existing construction while issuing notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. 4. Again a notification dated 15.03.2004 (Annexure P-1), thus was issued for acquiring the same land. Objections were filed but were not considered and consequently notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 became issued on 14.03.2005. Therefore, the petitioner filed C.W.P. No.5152 of 2006, wherebys he challenged the makings of the apposite notification. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, award No.16 was passed on 08.11.2006 (Annexure P-3). The said award was passed under Section 11 of the Act of 1894. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed by this Court, through a verdict made, on 25.02.2007. 5. A perusal of the award would show that compensation has been awarded for acquiring the structures, besides qua the acquired residential house of the petitioner. 6. The petitioner filed thereagainst SLP (Civil) No.18191 of ITHLESH KUMAR 2025.04.23 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-26543-2014 -3- 2008 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Leave was granted and ultimately Civil Appeal No.10127 of 2014, became assigned to the SLP concerned. The said Civil Appeal was disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to initiate proceedings for seeking the benefit envisaged under Section 24 of the Act of 2013. Consequently, the petitioner filed C.W.P. No.26543 of 2014. The said writ petition came up for hearing on 06.11.2017. The Coordinate Division Bench this Court, thus thereons, proceeded to hold, that since neither compensation has been paid nor possession of the land has been taken, qua rather therebys the subject acquisition standing lapsed. Relevant paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereinafter. “In the case in hand, it is the admitted position on record that the petitioner has not been paid the amount of compensation for the acquired land. In addition, admittedly even the construction was existing prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act and the petitioner is still in possession of the constructed portion.” 7. The State of Haryana filed thereagainst the S.L.P. (Civil), to which Civil Appeal No.2665 of 2024 became assigned. The said Civil Appeal came up for hearing on 16.02.2024 and then the lis was remanded to this Court, to take a decision in view of decision recorded in case titled as “Indore Development Authority versus Manohar Lal and others”, reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129. Relevant portion whereof becomes extracted hereinafter. “3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the sole respondent at length and carefully perusing the material placed on record, it appears that the High Court had declared the acquisition proceedings in question as lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, ITHLESH KUMAR 2025.04.23 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-26543-2014 -4- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. However, it is not disputed by the learned counsels for the parties that in view of the later decision in the case of “Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal And Ors. Etc .” reported in (2020) 8 SCC (129), the matter is required to be remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration. 4. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in the light of the Judgment in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). 5. It is clarified that all contentions are kept open to be raised by both the parties as may be legally permissible. 6. The appeal stands allowed in above terms.” 8. The present petitioner would be entitled to the espoused writ relief(s), as relates to this Court, thus declaring rather lapsed the extantly drawn acquisition proceedings, but only when the provisions embodied in Section 24(2) of the 'Act of 2013', become proved to become breached by the respondents. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the asked for relief qua the making of a lapsing declaration rather cannot be accorded by this Court. 9. Primarily for the reason, that the present petitioner would be entitled to coax this Court to declare the launching of the acquisition proceedings under the Act of 1894, to thus become lapsed, but only when the respondent-State, rather had completely failed to, in terms of the verdict rendered by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Indore Development Authority versus Manohar Lal and others, reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, adduce sufficient/clinching discharging evidence, in respect of the duo of the requisite parameters, inasmuch as, (i) qua rapat possession being made over the acquired lands, (ii) and, qua the compensation, as became determined by the Collector concerned, becoming deposited for therebys its becoming ITHLESH KUMAR 2025.04.23 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-26543-2014 -5- available for being released to the land losers concerned, besides the said events evidently happening before the coming into force of the 'Act of 2013'. 10. To determine the above, it is necessary to refer to the reply on affidavit, already on record. A reading of the paragraph No.6 of the reply on affidavit, reveals, that possession over the acquired lands became assumed through Rapat No.131 dated 25.01.2008. 11. Moreover, when it is further indicated in the reply, on affidavit, furnished to the writ petition, by the respondents concerned, that the total amount of assessed compensation, thus under the award dated 08.11.2006, rather has already been accepted by the landowners concerned. Furthermore, since it has also been stated therein, that insofar as, the compensation qua the land of the petitioner is concerned, rather despite the same becoming tendered on 09.03.2022 vide Demand Draft No.304983, yet the petitioner not seeking disbursement(s) thereof, and the same is lying deposited in the LAC account, for therebys it becoming available for becoming released to the land losers concerned. 12. In consequence, since both the above events, thus took place prior to the coming into force of the 'Act of 2013', resultantly, in terms of the verdict recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Indore Development Authority’s case (supra), the present petitioners are not entitled to make any espousal before this Court, that a lapsing declaration be made in terms of Section 24(2) of the 'Act of 2013'. In sequel, the above made writ claim is declined. 13. Further, a reading of para No.8 of the reply, on affidavit, it is revealed that the petitioner filed objections under Section 5-A of the 'Act of 1894', before the Collector concerned, claiming that the ITHLESH KUMAR 2025.04.23 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-26543-2014 -6- petitioner has raised constructions over the subject lands. However, since it is declared on affidavit that the subject land falls in the zone where community centre and sector roads became planned, therefore to subserve the (supra) public purpose, it has, despite structures existing thereovers, rather become imperative for the department to acquire the subject land. 14. Conspicuously also since it has been stated, in the reply on affidavit, already on record, that the subject lands are an integral component of the layout plans, thereby when they are facilitating the relevant public purposes. Consequently, when public purpose, than the selfish individualistic interest is rather to be furthered. Resultantly, this Court finds no merit in the instant petition, and, is constrained to dismiss it. 15. Moreover, the plea of the petitioner qua his still lawfully retaining possession over the subject lands, is a mis-founded plea, as, the occupation of the petitioner, over the subject lands rather is as trespasser thereovers whereupon the petitioner is required to be lawfully evicted therefroms. Final Order of this Court. 16. In aftermath, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, and, with the above observations, the same is dismissed. The impugned notification(s), and consequent thereto award are maintained and affirmed. (SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE (VIKAS SURI) 21.04.2025 JUDGE Ithlesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No ITHLESH KUMAR 2025.04.23 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment