CWP No.18026 of 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Manphool and others Versus State of Haryana and others CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. for the petitioners. Mr. LAPITA BANERJI, J. Under challenge in the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are the impugned notifications dated December 24, 2007 (Annexure P Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereina and the declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act, petitioners. 2. The respondents from taking possession of their land, during t the writ petition and proceedings. 3. The facts of the case CWP No.18026 of 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO. 18026 OF 2025 (O&M) RESERVED ON: JULY 0 DATE OF DECISION: Manphool and others Versus State of Haryana and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. AG, Haryana. LAPITA BANERJI, J. Under challenge in the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are the impugned notifications dated December 24, 2007 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1894 Act”) the declaration dated December 23, 2008 (Annexure P under Section 6 of the 1894 Act, seeking to acquire The petitioners have also prayed for restraining the from taking possession of their land, during t the writ petition and finally for release of their land from acquisition The facts of the case in brief are narrated IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CWP NO. 18026 OF 2025 (O&M) RESERVED ON: JULY 04, 2025 DATE OF DECISION: JULY 24, 2025 ….Petitioners ….Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI AG, Haryana. Under challenge in the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are the impugned notifications 2) issued under Section 4 of the fter referred to as “the 1894 Act”) dated December 23, 2008 (Annexure P-3) issued seeking to acquire the land of the petitioners have also prayed for restraining the from taking possession of their land, during the pendency of release of their land from acquisition are narrated hereinafter: SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.25 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.18026 of 2025 (O&M) i) The petitioners admeasuring 34 Kanals 09 Marlas comprising No.46 Killa No.11/2, 12, 13, Khasra No.86 Killa No.14, 15 situated in village Sunaria Kalan, District Rohtak. ii) Out of th petitioners was Urban Estate Department vide notification dated December 24, 2007 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act for de Sector 21, Rohtak. iii) The total land notified admeasured 231.52 acres. was issued on December 23, 2008 for acquiring 161.32 acres. iv) An award was passed on June 23, 2010 for compensation f 19 Kanals 05 Marlas belonging to the petitioner deposited the determined Collector. The petitioner proceedings which were v) A release of her land. Vide letter dated December 20, 2024 such request was forwarded by the Adminis Senior Town Planner, Rohtak. District Town Planner informed the Senior Town Planner that the land in question is earmarked for proposed residential project in Sector Rohtak. Therefore, the same could not be released. CWP No.18026 of 2025 (O&M) The petitioners were owners in possession admeasuring 34 Kanals 09 Marlas comprising No.46 Killa No.11/2, 12, 13, Khasra No.86 Killa No.14, 15 situated in village Sunaria Kalan, District Rohtak. Out of the said land, 19 Kanals 05 Marlas was sought to be acquired by the government of Haryana, Urban Estate Department vide notification dated December 24, 2007 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act for de 21, Rohtak. The total land notified under 231.52 acres. Declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued on December 23, 2008 for acquiring 161.32 acres. An award was passed on June 23, 2010 for compensation for an area of 159.46 acres including the la 19 Kanals 05 Marlas belonging to the petitioner the determined compensation before the Land Acquisition he petitioners had neither challenge which were initiated in 2007 nor withdr A representation was made by only release of her land. Vide letter dated December 20, 2024 such request was forwarded by the Administrator, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran Senior Town Planner, Rohtak. Vide office memo dated April 23, 2025 the District Town Planner informed the Senior Town Planner that the land in question is earmarked for proposed residential project in Sector Therefore, the same could not be released. Page 2 of 12 were owners in possession of the land admeasuring 34 Kanals 09 Marlas comprising in Khewat No.727 Khasra No.46 Killa No.11/2, 12, 13, Khasra No.86 Killa No.14, 15 situated in land, 19 Kanals 05 Marlas belonging to the acquired by the government of Haryana, Urban Estate Department vide notification dated December 24, 2007 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act for developing a special zone in under Section 4 notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued on December 23, 2008 for acquiring 161.32 acres. An award was passed on June 23, 2010 for determining including the land admeasuring 19 Kanals 05 Marlas belonging to the petitioners. Consequently, the State compensation before the Land Acquisition challenged the land acquisition nor withdrew the compensation. only petitioner No.2-Bala for release of her land. Vide letter dated December 20, 2024 such request was trator, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran to the Vide office memo dated April 23, 2025 the District Town Planner informed the Senior Town Planner that the land in question is earmarked for proposed residential project in Sector-22, Therefore, the same could not be released. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.25 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.18026 of 2025 (O&M) 4. Learned counsel dated October 26, 2007 released the acquisition raised constructions over the land and therefore, policy of the State of Haryana, the authorities were under an obligation to release the land of the petitioners. Furthermore, the petitioner accepted the compensation awarded by the government and were in physical possession of the land in question. representation of petitioner No.2 perspective and the land of all the petition 5. Issue Notice. 6. Mr. Mittal, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice and submits that the petition is completely since the land had utilized in future. He submits that Section 101 Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”), gives liberty to the St land on such premise as is considered expedi payment of compensation on account of damages land owner d government to essential. No land owner had a vested right to assert that the land has become either unviable or non relies on a judgment of Apex Court CWP No.18026 of 2025 (O&M) Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that under policy dated October 26, 2007 (Annexure P-8) the government should have released the acquisitioned land of the petitioners. The petitioners had raised constructions over the land and therefore, policy of the State of Haryana, the authorities were under an obligation to release the land of the petitioners. Furthermore, the petitioner accepted the compensation awarded by the government and were in physical possession of the land in question. representation of petitioner No.2 should be considered in proper perspective and the land of all the petitioners Issue Notice. Mr. Mittal, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice and submits that the petition is completely since the land had been acquired for a public purpose and ilized in future. He submits that Section 101 Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”), gives liberty to the State government to de-notify land on such premise as is considered expedi payment of compensation on account of damages land owner due to such acquisition. The power government to assess whether the land has become unviable or non No land owner had a vested right to assert that the land has become either unviable or non-essential and claim release of the land relies on a judgment of Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. for the petitioners argues that under policy the government should have land of the petitioners. The petitioners had raised constructions over the land and therefore, under the aforesaid policy of the State of Haryana, the authorities were under an obligation to release the land of the petitioners. Furthermore, the petitioners had not accepted the compensation awarded by the government and were in physical possession of the land in question. As a natural corollary, the should be considered in proper ers should be released. Mr. Mittal, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice and submits that the petition is completely misconceived been acquired for a public purpose and is required to be ilized in future. He submits that Section 101-A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”), gives fy unviable and non-essential land on such premise as is considered expedient by the State, including payment of compensation on account of damages, if any, sustained by the to such acquisition. The power lay with the State assess whether the land has become unviable or non- No land owner had a vested right to assert that the land has and claim release of the land. He Civil Appeal No.16421 of 2021 SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.25 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.18026 of 2025 (O&M) “Ram Swaroop (dead) through LRs and another v. State of Haryana and others” arising out of SLP (Civil) No.16421 of 2021. 7. Learned Court judgment 2023 “Nandkishor Babulal Agrawal v. The others” to submit that High Courts should be extremely circumspect to issue a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lawfully acquired land for the public purpose for which it was acquired. that no timeframe is specified for utilization of land under the 1894 Act. 8. T perused the material 9. The petitioners have sought to challenge the acquisition proceedings initiated by issuance of notification dated December 24, 2007 under Section 4 nine writ petitioners, only petitioner No.2 made a representation for release of her land. The other petitioners have approached this Court directly after 15 years of passing of the award dated June 23, 2010 (Annexure P- by the principles of delay, laches and acquiescence be expedient to discuss the law governing the field 10. In “ reported in (2012) 1 SCC 66 approaching the Court would negate the challenge to the acquisition CWP No.18026 of 2025 (O&M) Ram Swaroop (dead) through LRs and another v. State of Haryana ” arising out of SLP (Civil) No.16421 of 2021. Learned State counsel further relies on a recent Supreme Court judgment dated November 10, 2023 in Nandkishor Babulal Agrawal v. The ” to submit that High Courts should be extremely circumspect to issue a writ of mandamus in exercise of its extra under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lawfully acquired land, on the premise that such land has not been utilized for the public purpose for which it was acquired. that no timeframe is specified for utilization of land under the 1894 Act. This Court has heard learned counsel for the p perused the material on record. The petitioners have sought to challenge the acquisition proceedings initiated by issuance of notification dated December 24, 2007 under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, after a period of almost 18 years. Out of nine writ petitioners, only petitioner No.2 made a representation for release of her land. The other petitioners have approached this Court directly after 15 years of passing of the award dated June 23, 2010 -4). Such inaction on the part of the petitioners is directly hit by the principles of delay, laches and acquiescence expedient to discuss the law governing the field In “Leela Wanti and others v. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 66, the Apex Court held that delay and laches in approaching the Court would negate the challenge to the acquisition Ram Swaroop (dead) through LRs and another v. State of Haryana ” arising out of SLP (Civil) No.16421 of 2021. counsel further relies on a recent Supreme dated November 10, 2023 in Civil Appeal No.7634 of Nandkishor Babulal Agrawal v. The State of Maharashtra and ” to submit that High Courts should be extremely circumspect to in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing release of a on the premise that such land has not been utilized for the public purpose for which it was acquired. Furthermore, he submits that no timeframe is specified for utilization of land under the 1894 Act. his Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and The petitioners have sought to challenge the acquisition proceedings initiated by issuance of notification dated December 24, 2007 , after a period of almost 18 years. Out of nine writ petitioners, only petitioner No.2 made a representation for release of her land. The other petitioners have approached this Court directly after 15 years of passing of the award dated June 23, 2010 on the part of the petitioners is directly hit by the principles of delay, laches and acquiescence. At this stage, it would expedient to discuss the law governing the field. Leela Wanti and others v. State of Haryana and others” the Apex Court held that delay and laches in approaching the Court would negate the challenge to the acquisition SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.25 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.18026 of 2025 (O&M) proceedings. The relevant extract of the said paragraph is reproduced herein below: “ Land Administration Manual nowhere suggests that the State Government is duty owners after the purpose of acquisition is accomplished. It merely mentions that as a usually willing to restore agricultural and pastoral land to the owners on their refunding the amount of compensation. xx 19. the learned counsel for the appellants then in all the cases the acquired land will have to be returned to the owners ir and the date on which the purpose of acquisition specified i Section 4 use the acquired land for any other public purpose. Such an interpretation would also be contrary to the language of Section 16 of the Act in terms of which the acquired land vests in the State the law laid down by this Court that lands acquired for a particular public purpose can be utilized for any other public purpose 11. In others” reported in the issue of non by the government and chooses to de reproduced herein below: “xxx 5. have no hesitation in observing by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment is not an accurate statement Constitution Bench considered the question of lapsing of acquisition 2013 Act. While examining t Section 101 unutilized land. In that context, the Constitution Bench had observed that Section 101 of the 2013 Act cannot apply to acquisition made under the 1894 Act. However, i occasion to deal with the efficacy of Section 101 CWP No.18026 of 2025 (O&M) proceedings. The relevant extract of the said paragraph is reproduced herein below: “18. A reading of the above reproduced Paragraph of the Land Administration Manual nowhere suggests that the State Government is duty-bound to restore the acquired land to the owners after the purpose of acquisition is accomplished. It merely mentions that as a matter of grace the government is usually willing to restore agricultural and pastoral land to the owners on their refunding the amount of compensation. xx xxx 19. If paragraph 493 is read in the ma the learned counsel for the appellants then in all the cases the acquired land will have to be returned to the owners irrespective of the time gap between the date of acquisition and the date on which the purpose of acquisition specified i Section 4 is achieved and the government will not be free to use the acquired land for any other public purpose. Such an interpretation would also be contrary to the language of Section 16 of the Act in terms of which the acquired land vests in the State government free from all encumbrances and the law laid down by this Court that lands acquired for a particular public purpose can be utilized for any other public purpose.” In “Raghubir Singh and another v. State of Haryana and ” reported in (2022) 4 SCC 728, it was held by the Apex Court that the issue of non-viability or non-essentiality of the land was to be decided by the government and it is for the State to decide whether or not it chooses to de-notify the same. Relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced herein below: “xxx 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have no hesitation in observing by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment is not an accurate statement Constitution Bench considered the question of lapsing of acquisition proceedings in reference to Section 24 of the 2013 Act. While examining that question, it had also noticed Section 101 of the 2013 Act, which deals with return of unutilized land. In that context, the Constitution Bench had observed that Section 101 of the 2013 Act cannot apply to acquisition made under the 1894 Act. However, i occasion to deal with the efficacy of Section 101 proceedings. The relevant extract of the said paragraph is reproduced A reading of the above reproduced Paragraph of the Land Administration Manual nowhere suggests that the State bound to restore the acquired land to the owners after the purpose of acquisition is accomplished. It matter of grace the government is usually willing to restore agricultural and pastoral land to the owners on their refunding the amount of compensation. If paragraph 493 is read in the manner suggested by the learned counsel for the appellants then in all the cases the acquired land will have to be returned to the owners respective of the time gap between the date of acquisition and the date on which the purpose of acquisition specified in is achieved and the government will not be free to use the acquired land for any other public purpose. Such an interpretation would also be contrary to the language of Section 16 of the Act in terms of which the acquired land government free from all encumbrances and the law laid down by this Court that lands acquired for a particular public purpose can be utilized for any other public Raghubir Singh and another v. State of Haryana and it was held by the Apex Court that essentiality of the land was to be decided it is for the State to decide whether or not it tract of the said judgment is hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have no hesitation in observing that the conclusion reached by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment is not an accurate statement of law. Indeed, the Constitution Bench considered the question of lapsing of proceedings in reference to Section 24 of the hat question, it had also noticed of the 2013 Act, which deals with return of unutilized land. In that context, the Constitution Bench had observed that Section 101 of the 2013 Act cannot apply to acquisition made under the 1894 Act. However, it had no occasion to deal with the efficacy of Section 101-A of the SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.25 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.18026 of 2025 (O&M) 2013 Act, as applicable to the State of Haryana. Whereas, in the present cases, the landowners had approached the High Court with twin reliefs. The primary relief being for a declaration o 1894 Act and in the alternative to permit them t the State of Haryana for invoking power under Section 101 of the 2013 Act as applicable to the State of Haryana, which has come into force w.e.f 1 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Haryana Amendment) xxx 7. Section 101 it amply clear that there is also a need to ensure that land is returned back by the State Government as per the due process, in case the land acquired under the old 1894 Act becomes unviable or non the 2013 Act is proposed to be added to provide for such expediencies. xxx 9. subject the time being. As long as the book, it enables the State Government to take appropriate decision in public interest on the factum of the lands in question, having become unviable or non power vested in the State is periodically evaluate the situation or at least soon after it is brought to its notice by the erstwhile landowners or by any public being wasted, unutilised essent bounden duty of the State to examine the relevant facts and form suitable opinion as may be advised, regarding lands having become unviable or non satisfied that the acqu non be obliged in larger public interest to denotify such land on such terms and conditions as may be necessary. 10. 10. landowners such representation inviting a decision of the State, within the realm of Section 101 certainly not in the nature of giving a vested right to the landowners regarding denotification of the acquired land nor does it follow that upon denotification, the lands in question must return to the erstwhile owners the State Government to denotify the acquired land on such terms and con CWP No.18026 of 2025 (O&M) 2013 Act, as applicable to the State of Haryana. Whereas, in the present cases, the landowners had approached the High Court with twin reliefs. The primary relief being for a declaration of lapsing of acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act and in the alternative to permit them t the State of Haryana for invoking power under Section 101 of the 2013 Act as applicable to the State of Haryana, which has come into force w.e.f 1-1-2014 vide publication of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Haryana Amendment) Act, 2017 – inserted w.e.f 24 xxx 7. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for inserting Section 101-A of the 2013 Act by the State Legislature, makes it amply clear that there is also a need to ensure that land is returned back by the State Government as per the due process, in case the land acquired under the old 1894 Act becomes unviable or non-essenti the 2013 Act is proposed to be added to provide for such expediencies. xxx 9. Notably, the validity of Section 101 subject-matter of challenge before us from any quarter, for the time being. As long as the provision exists on the statute book, it enables the State Government to take appropriate decision in public interest on the factum of the lands in question, having become unviable or non power vested in the State is, indeed, coupled with a periodically evaluate the situation or at least soon after it is brought to its notice by the erstwhile landowners or by any public-spirited person that the immovable public propert being wasted, unutilised or has become unviable or non essential. After receipt of such representation, it would be the bounden duty of the State to examine the relevant facts and form suitable opinion as may be advised, regarding lands having become unviable or non satisfied that the acquired lands have become unviable or non-essential, it is expected of the State, nay the State would be obliged in larger public interest to denotify such land on such terms and conditions as may be necessary. 10. Thus understood, there is no reason to ass landowners cannot request the State Government to consider such representation inviting a decision of the State, within the realm of Section 101-A of the 2013 Act. This provision is certainly not in the nature of giving a vested right to the andowners regarding denotification of the acquired land nor does it follow that upon denotification, the lands in question must return to the erstwhile owners the State Government to denotify the acquired land on such terms and conditions as may be expedient, in public interest. Page 6 of 12 2013 Act, as applicable to the State of Haryana. Whereas, in the present cases, the landowners had approached the High Court with twin reliefs. The primary relief being for a acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act and in the alternative to permit them to approach the State of Haryana for invoking power under Section 101-A of the 2013 Act as applicable to the State of Haryana, which 2014 vide publication of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Haryana inserted w.e.f 24-5-2018. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for inserting A of the 2013 Act by the State Legislature, makes it amply clear that there is also a need to ensure that land is returned back by the State Government as per the due process, in case the land acquired under the old 1894 Act essential. Further, Section 101-A of the 2013 Act is proposed to be added to provide for such Notably, the validity of Section 101-A is not the matter of challenge before us from any quarter, for provision exists on the statute book, it enables the State Government to take appropriate decision in public interest on the factum of the lands in question, having become unviable or non-essential. This indeed, coupled with a duty to periodically evaluate the situation or at least soon after it is brought to its notice by the erstwhile landowners or by any spirited person that the immovable public property is or has become unviable or non- ial. After receipt of such representation, it would be the bounden duty of the State to examine the relevant facts and form suitable opinion as may be advised, regarding lands having become unviable or non-essential or not. If it is ired lands have become unviable or essential, it is expected of the State, nay the State would be obliged in larger public interest to denotify such land on such terms and conditions as may be necessary. Thus understood, there is no reason to assume that the annot request the State Government to consider such representation inviting a decision of the State, within A of the 2013 Act. This provision is certainly not in the nature of giving a vested right to the andowners regarding denotification of the acquired land nor does it follow that upon denotification, the lands in question must return to the erstwhile owners only. It will be open to the State Government to denotify the acquired land on such ditions as may be expedient, in public interest. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.25 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.18026 of 2025 (O&M) Thus, the provision empowers the State to denotify the lands acquired under the 1894 Act. 1 the impugned order, that the landowners cannot be allowed to approach the State Government to exercise its power under Section 101 statement of law and needs to be understood in the above terms. xxx 13. some structure State Government, by itself can be no reason to denotify the acquired land. It can be done only if the State Government is fully satisfied that the land has become unviable or non essential for the purpose of reason for which it was so acquired x 12. The said aspect was thereafter reconsidered by the Apex Court in Ram Swaroop’s Section 101-A did not give a vested right to the land owner notification. It is not for the Court to sit in appeal over the opinion of the competent authority which had to ensure effective town planning and the issue of requirement of land passed. The claim could not be sustained only on the ground of possession, since the petitioners continued to be in unauthorized possession once the award was passed. The relevant observa follows: “ Haryana) gives liberty to the State Government to de such land, on such terms, as considered expedient by the State Government, including the payment of compensation on acc to such acquisition. Section 101 with the State Government to de State if it finds that any public purpose for which land was acquired under the unviable or non the State Government on its satisfaction that the land acquired has become unviable or non CWP No.18026 of 2025 (O&M) Thus, the provision empowers the State to denotify the lands acquired under the 1894 Act. 11. Viewed thus, the conclusion of the Division Bench in the impugned order, that the landowners cannot be allowed to approach the State Government to exercise its power under Section 101-A of the 2013 Act, may not be an accurate statement of law and needs to be understood in the above terms. xxx 13. The fact that the landowners have already constructed some structures on the acquired land, which has vested in the State Government, by itself can be no reason to denotify the acquired land. It can be done only if the State Government is fully satisfied that the land has become unviable or non essential for the purpose of development and in particular for reason for which it was so acquired xxx” The said aspect was thereafter reconsidered by the Apex Ram Swaroop’s case (supra) and the Apex Court clarified that A did not give a vested right to the land owner notification. It is not for the Court to sit in appeal over the opinion of the competent authority which had to ensure effective town planning and the issue of requirement of land, which stood vested once the award was passed. The claim could not be sustained only on the ground of since the petitioners continued to be in unauthorized possession once the award was passed. The relevant observa “8. Section 101-A of 2013 Act (as inserted in State of Haryana) gives liberty to the State Government to de such land, on such terms, as considered expedient by the State Government, including the payment of compensation on account of damages, if any, sustained by the landowner due to such acquisition. Section 101 with the State Government to de State if it finds that any public purpose for which land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 becomes unviable or non-essential. In other words, the power is with the State Government on its satisfaction that the land acquired has become unviable or non Thus, the provision empowers the State to denotify the lands Viewed thus, the conclusion of the Division Bench in the impugned order, that the landowners cannot be allowed to approach the State Government to exercise its power A of the 2013 Act, may not be an accurate statement of law and needs to be understood in the above The fact that the landowners have already constructed s on the acquired land, which has vested in the State Government, by itself can be no reason to denotify the acquired land. It can be done only if the State Government is fully satisfied that the land has become unviable or non- development and in particular for reason for which it was so acquired. The said aspect was thereafter reconsidered by the Apex and the Apex Court clarified that A did not give a vested right to the land owner to seek de- notification. It is not for the Court to sit in appeal over the opinion of the competent authority which had to ensure effective town planning and the which stood vested once the award was passed. The claim could not be sustained only on the ground of since the petitioners continued to be in unauthorized possession once the award was passed. The relevant observations are as A of 2013 Act (as inserted in State of Haryana) gives liberty to the State Government to de-notify such land, on such terms, as considered expedient by the State Government, including the payment of compensation on ount of damages, if any, sustained by the landowner due to such acquisition. Section 101-A is an enabling provision with the State Government to de-notify the land vested with State if it finds that any public purpose for which land was Land Acquisition Act, 1894 becomes essential. In other words, the power is with the State Government on its satisfaction that the land acquired has become unviable or non-essential. No SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.25 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.18026 of 2025 (O&M) landowner has a vested right to assert that the land ac has become unviable or non landowner continued to be in possession by virtue of an interim order passed by the High Court. X 11. account of Section 24 (2) had been rejected by the State Government on 12.09.2016. The writ petition against the said order stands dismissed on 12.10.2020. appeal is merely an attempt to the land on one pretext or the other so as to defeat the public purpose of acquisition of the land for development and utilization of residential, commercial and institutional area, Sector Raghubir Singh has held that Section 101 vested right to the landowner to seek denotification or even that upon denotification, the land in question must return to the erstwhile owners only. The state Government is at liberty to pa landowners. x 13. In acquisition proceedings It was held by the Apex Court that once government, the public purpose for which it stood acquired could be changed later and there was no time limit within which the authorities would be expected to utilize the acquired land. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under: “xxx 11. extremely circumspect to issue a mandamus in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing to release a lawfully acquired land only on the premise that such l the public purpose for which it was acquired. There is no gainsaying that once the land vests in the State or its authorities changed at a later stage. All that is required is th should be utilized for public purposes only. In fact, there cannot be a time limit within which the authorities are expected to utilize the acquired land. The Municipalities or such other agencies are expected to have long CWP No.18026 of 2025 (O&M) landowner has a vested right to assert that the land ac has become unviable or non-essential landowner continued to be in possession by virtue of an interim order passed by the High Court. Xxx 11. The claim of the appellants for release of land on account of Section 24 (2) had been rejected by the State Government on 12.09.2016. The writ petition against the said order stands dismissed on 12.10.2020. appeal is merely an attempt to continue to be in possession of the land on one pretext or the other so as to defeat the public purpose of acquisition of the land for development and utilization of residential, commercial and institutional area, Sector-51, Gurgaon (now Gurugram). This Co Raghubir Singh has held that Section 101 vested right to the landowner to seek denotification or even that upon denotification, the land in question must return to the erstwhile owners only. The state Government is at liberty to pass such order other than release of land in favour of the landowners. xxx” In Nandkishor Babulal’s case (supra), acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act stood lapsed It was held by the Apex Court that once the land stood vested in the State government, the public purpose for which it stood acquired could be changed later and there was no time limit within which the authorities would be expected to utilize the acquired land. Relevant paragraph of the dgment reads as under: “xxx 11. In our considered view, the High Court would be extremely circumspect to issue a mandamus in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing to release a lawfully acquired land only on the premise that such land has not been utilized for the public purpose for which it was acquired. There is no gainsaying that once the land vests in the State or its authorities, the ‘public purpose’ of its acquisition can be changed at a later stage. All that is required is th should be utilized for public purposes only. In fact, there cannot be a time limit within which the authorities are expected to utilize the acquired land. The Municipalities or such other agencies are expected to have long landowner has a vested right to assert that the land acquired essential mainly because the landowner continued to be in possession by virtue of an interim order passed by the High Court. The claim of the appellants for release of land on account of Section 24 (2) had been rejected by the State Government on 12.09.2016. The writ petition against the said order stands dismissed on 12.10.2020. Thus, the present continue to be in possession of the land on one pretext or the other so as to defeat the public purpose of acquisition of the land for development and utilization of residential, commercial and institutional area, 51, Gurgaon (now Gurugram). This Court in Raghubir Singh has held that Section 101-A does not give a vested right to the landowner to seek denotification or even that upon denotification, the land in question must return to the erstwhile owners only. The state Government is at liberty ss such order other than release of land in favour of the (supra), the issue whether the stood lapsed, was considered. the land stood vested in the State government, the public purpose for which it stood acquired could be changed later and there was no time limit within which the authorities would be expected to utilize the acquired land. Relevant paragraph of the In our considered view, the High Court would be extremely circumspect to issue a mandamus in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing to release a lawfully acquired land and has not been utilized for the public purpose for which it was acquired. There is no gainsaying that once the land vests in the State or its , the ‘public purpose’ of its acquisition can be changed at a later stage. All that is required is that such land should be utilized for public purposes only. In fact, there cannot be a time limit within which the authorities are expected to utilize the acquired land. The Municipalities or such other agencies are expected to have long-term plans for SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.25 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.18026 of 2025 (O&M) regul certain pockets of land are required to be kept vacant as reserve pool to cater the future needs. x 14. The unambiguous exposition of law does not right or equity in favour of 2013 Act also does not aid the case of the petitioners in any manner as the said Section is deemed to have come into force on January 01, 2014 and would only be applicable in case all the awards which were pas years prior to the deemed date of coming into force of the said Section. The award in the was within a period of five years of Section 24 of the 2013 Act. 15. Furthermore, once the compensation was deposited before the Land Acquisition Collector, it would have to be deemed following the law laid down in the possession Rapat Roznamcha contended by the petitioners that the physical possession remained with them. Any possession retained by the petitioners thereafter would be unauthorized and cannot au Relevant extract below: “ 243. and possession has been taken, it has vested in the State had been allotted to beneficiaries. A considerable infrastructure could have been developed and a third interest had also intervened. The land would have been given by the acquiring scheme the land had CWP No.18026 of 2025 (O&M) regulated development of urban areas and for that purpose, certain pockets of land are required to be kept vacant as reserve pool to cater the future needs. xxx” The unambiguous exposition of law does not right or equity in favour of the petitioners. Reliance on Section 24 of the 2013 Act also does not aid the case of the petitioners in any manner as the said Section is deemed to have come into force on January 01, 2014 and would only be applicable in case all the awards which were pas years prior to the deemed date of coming into force of the said Section. The award in the present case was passed on June 23, 2010. Clearly, it was within a period of five years from the deemed date of commencement of Section 24 of the 2013 Act. Furthermore, once the compensation was deposited before the Land Acquisition Collector, it would have to be deemed following the law laid down in Indore Development’s possession is taken over by the State authorities Rapat Roznamcha (memorandum of possession) contended by the petitioners that the physical possession remained with Any possession retained by the petitioners thereafter would be unauthorized and cannot augment the case of petitioners in any manner. Relevant extract from the above said judgment is reproduced herein “xxx 243. It is clear that once land is acquired, award passed and possession has been taken, it has vested in the State had been allotted to beneficiaries. A considerable infrastructure could have been developed and a third interest had also intervened. The land would have been given by the acquiring authorities to the beneficiaries from whose scheme the land had been acquired and they have developed ated development of urban areas and for that purpose, certain pockets of land are required to be kept vacant as reserve pool to cater the future needs. The unambiguous exposition of law does not create any legal Reliance on Section 24 of the 2013 Act also does not aid the case of the petitioners in any manner as the said Section is deemed to have come into force on January 01, 2014 and would only be applicable in case all the awards which were passed five years prior to the deemed date of coming into force of the said Section. present case was passed on June 23, 2010. Clearly, it from the deemed date of commencement Furthermore, once the compensation was deposited before the Land Acquisition Collector, it would have to be deemed to be paid Indore Development’s case (supra). Once is taken over by the State authorities recording the same in (memorandum of possession), it could not be later contended by the petitioners that the physical possession remained with Any possession retained by the petitioners thereafter would be gment the case of petitioners in any manner. dgment is reproduced herein It is clear that once land is acquired, award passed and possession has been taken, it has vested in the State. It had been allotted to beneficiaries. A considerable infrastructure could have been developed and a third-party interest had also intervened. The land would have been given authorities to the beneficiaries from whose been acquired and they have developed SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.25 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.18026 of 2025 (O&M) immense submission that merely by deposit of amount in treasury instead of court, we should invalidate all the acquisitions, which have taken place. That is not what is cont under Section 24 (2). We are also not able to accept the submission that when law operates these harsh consequences need not be seen by the court. In our opinion, that submission is without merit as such consequences are not even envisaged on prop above. 244. that the with respect to the majority of landholdings. In case compensation has not be majority of landholdings, all the beneficiaries are entitled for higher compensation with the Land Acquisition Collector or in the treasury or in court with respect to majority of landholdings, consequence has to follow of higher compensation proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Ev deposit in treasury is irregular, then the interest would follow as envisaged under Section 34 of the 1894 Act is attracted if acquisition proceeding is not completed within 5 years after the pronouncement of award. Parliame considered the period of 5 years as reasonable time to complete the acquisition proceedings i.e. taking physical possession of the land and payment of compensation. It is the clear intent of the 2013 shall apply to t on which the 2013 Act, has been brought into force and it does not apply to the concluded proceedings. before us by one of the counsel that lands in the Raisina Hills and Lutyens' Zones of Delhi w compensation has not been paid. The 2013 Act applies only to the pending proceedings in which possession has not been taken or compensation has not paid and not to a case where proceedings have been concluded long back, Section 24( not a tool to revive those proceedings and to question the validity of taking acquisition proceedings due to which possession the manner of deposit of amount in the treasury. The 2013 Act never inten landowners were interested in questioning the proceedings of taking possession or mode of deposit with the treasury, such a challenge was permissible within the time available with them to do so. They cannot wake fr raise such claims in order to defeat the acquisition validly made. In our opinion, the law nev permits reopen all the acquisitions made after 1984, and it is the dut of the court to examine the details of such claims. There are CWP No.18026 of 2025 (O&M) immense infrastructure. We are unable to accept the submission that merely by deposit of amount in treasury instead of court, we should invalidate all the acquisitions, which have taken place. That is not what is cont under Section 24 (2). We are also not able to accept the submission that when law operates these harsh consequences need not be seen by the court. In our opinion, that submission is without merit as such consequences are not even envisaged on proper interpretation of Section 24 (2), as mentioned above. 244. The proviso to Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act, intends that the Collector would have sufficient funds to deposit it with respect to the majority of landholdings. In case compensation has not been paid or deposited with respect to majority of landholdings, all the beneficiaries are entitled for higher compensation. In case money has not been deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector or in the treasury or in court with respect to majority of landholdings, consequence has to follow of higher compensation proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Ev deposit in treasury is irregular, then the interest would follow as envisaged under Section 34 of the 1894 Act is attracted if acquisition proceeding is not completed within 5 years after the pronouncement of award. Parliame considered the period of 5 years as reasonable time to complete the acquisition proceedings i.e. taking physical possession of the land and payment of compensation. It is the clear intent of the 2013 Act, that shall apply to the proceeding which is pending as on the date on which the 2013 Act, has been brought into force and it does not apply to the concluded proceedings. before us by one of the counsel that lands in the Raisina Hills and Lutyens' Zones of Delhi w compensation has not been paid. The 2013 Act applies only to the pending proceedings in which possession has not been taken or compensation has not paid and not to a case where proceedings have been concluded long back, Section 24( not a tool to revive those proceedings and to question the validity of taking acquisition proceedings due to which possession in 1960s, 1970s, 1980s were taken, or to question the manner of deposit of amount in the treasury. The 2013 Act never intended revival of such claims. In case such landowners were interested in questioning the proceedings of taking possession or mode of deposit with the treasury, such a challenge was permissible within the time available with them to do so. They cannot wake fr raise such claims in order to defeat the acquisition validly made. In our opinion, the law nev permits- misuse much less gross abuse of its provisions to reopen all the acquisitions made after 1984, and it is the dut of the court to examine the details of such claims. There are infrastructure. We are unable to accept the submission that merely by deposit of amount in treasury instead of court, we should invalidate all the acquisitions, which have taken place. That is not what is contemplated under Section 24 (2). We are also not able to accept the submission that when law operates these harsh consequences need not be seen by the court. In our opinion, that submission is without merit as such consequences are not even envisaged er interpretation of Section 24 (2), as mentioned The proviso to Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act, intends Collector would have sufficient funds to deposit it with respect to the majority of landholdings. In case en paid or deposited with respect to majority of landholdings, all the beneficiaries are entitled for . In case money has not been deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector or in the treasury or in court with respect to majority of landholdings, the consequence has to follow of higher compensation as per the proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Even otherwise, if deposit in treasury is irregular, then the interest would follow as envisaged under Section 34 of the 1894 Act. Section 24(2) is attracted if acquisition proceeding is not completed within 5 years after the pronouncement of award. Parliament considered the period of 5 years as reasonable time to complete the acquisition proceedings i.e. taking physical possession of the land and payment of compensation. It is the that provision of Section 24(2) he proceeding which is pending as on the date on which the 2013 Act, has been brought into force and it does not apply to the concluded proceedings. It was urged before us by one of the counsel that lands in the Raisina Hills and Lutyens' Zones of Delhi were acquired in 1913 and compensation has not been paid. The 2013 Act applies only to the pending proceedings in which possession has not been taken or compensation has not paid and not to a case where proceedings have been concluded long back, Section 24(2) is not a tool to revive those proceedings and to question the validity of taking acquisition proceedings due to which in 1960s, 1970s, 1980s were taken, or to question the manner of deposit of amount in the treasury. The 2013 ded revival of such claims. In case such landowners were interested in questioning the proceedings of taking possession or mode of deposit with the treasury, such a challenge was permissible within the time available with them to do so. They cannot wake from deep slumber and raise such claims in order to defeat the acquisition validly made. In our opinion, the law never contemplates -nor misuse much less gross abuse of its provisions to reopen all the acquisitions made after 1984, and it is the duty of the court to examine the details of such claims. There are SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.25 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.18026 of 2025 (O&M) several litigations before us where landowners the challenge to the validity of acquisition proceedings and after having sought enhancement of the amount in the reference succeedi arguing about lapse of acquisition after several rounds of litigation. xxx 274. Section 24 the expression used is not possession but physical possession. In our o possession or under Section 17 before the passing of the award, land absolutely vests in the State on drawing of panchnama of taking possession, which is the mode of taking possession. Thereafter, any re possession is wholly illegal and trespasser's possession inures for the benefit of the owner and even in the case of open land, possession is deemed to be that of the owner. When the land is vacant and is lying open, it is presumed t be that of the owner by this Court as held in Kashi Bai v. Sudha Rani Ghose. Mere re is acquired and vests absolutely in the State (under the 1894 Act) does not confer any right to it and Section 24(2) does not have the e State. xxx 279. number of cases where, after acquisition land has been handed over to various corporations, local authorities, acquiring bodies, etc. Af acquisition) those bodies and authorities have been handed possession of lands. They, in turn, after development of such acquired lands have handed over properties; third interests have intervened and now declarat under the cover of Section 24(2) to invalidate all such actions. As held by us, Section 24 does not intend to cover such cases at all and such gross misuse of the provisions of law must stop. Title once vested, cannot be obliterated, without landowners' argument that after possession too, in case of non were for arguments' sake, be accepted, these third owners would be deprived of t by them, without compensation of any sort. Thus, we have no hesitation to overrule the decisions in Velaxan Kumar Narmada Bachao Andolan with regard to mode of taking possession. We hold that drawing of panchnama of taking possession is the mode of taking possession in land acquisition cases, thereupon land vests in re and does not inure for conferring benefits under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. CWP No.18026 of 2025 (O&M) several litigations before us where landowners the challenge to the validity of acquisition proceedings and after having sought enhancement of the amount in the reference succeeding in it nevertheless are seeking relief arguing about lapse of acquisition after several rounds of litigation. xxx 274. It was submitted on behalf of landowners that under Section 24 the expression used is not possession but physical possession. In our opinion, under the 1894 Act when possession is taken after award is passed under Section 16 or under Section 17 before the passing of the award, land absolutely vests in the State on drawing of panchnama of taking possession, which is the mode of taking possession. Thereafter, any re-entry in posse possession is wholly illegal and trespasser's possession inures for the benefit of the owner and even in the case of open land, possession is deemed to be that of the owner. When the land is vacant and is lying open, it is presumed t be that of the owner by this Court as held in Kashi Bai v. Sudha Rani Ghose. Mere re-entry on government land once it is acquired and vests absolutely in the State (under the 1894 Act) does not confer any right to it and Section 24(2) does not have the effect of divesting the land once it vests in the State. xxx 279. The Court is alive to the fact that there are a large number of cases where, after acquisition land has been handed over to various corporations, local authorities, acquiring bodies, etc. After depositing compensation (for the acquisition) those bodies and authorities have been handed possession of lands. They, in turn, after development of such acquired lands have handed over properties; third interests have intervened and now declarat under the cover of Section 24(2) to invalidate all such actions. As held by us, Section 24 does not intend to cover such cases at all and such gross misuse of the provisions of law must stop. Title once vested, cannot be obliterated, without an express legal provision; in any case, even if the landowners' argument that after possession too, in case of non-payment of compensation, the acquisition would lapse, were for arguments' sake, be accepted, these third owners would be deprived of their lands, lawfully acquired by them, without compensation of any sort. Thus, we have no hesitation to overrule the decisions in Velaxan Kumar Narmada Bachao Andolan with regard to mode of taking possession. We hold that drawing of panchnama of taking possession is the mode of taking possession in land acquisition cases, thereupon land vests in re-entry or retaining the possession thereafter is unlawful and does not inure for conferring benefits under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. Page 11 of 12 several litigations before us where landowners, having lost the challenge to the validity of acquisition proceedings and after having sought enhancement of the amount in the ng in it nevertheless are seeking relief arguing about lapse of acquisition after several rounds of It was submitted on behalf of landowners that under Section 24 the expression used is not possession but physical pinion, under the 1894 Act when is taken after award is passed under Section 16 or under Section 17 before the passing of the award, land absolutely vests in the State on drawing of panchnama of taking possession, which is the mode of taking possession. entry in possession or retaining the possession is wholly illegal and trespasser's possession inures for the benefit of the owner and even in the case of open land, possession is deemed to be that of the owner. When the land is vacant and is lying open, it is presumed to be that of the owner by this Court as held in Kashi Bai v. entry on government land once it is acquired and vests absolutely in the State (under the 1894 Act) does not confer any right to it and Section 24(2) does ffect of divesting the land once it vests in the The Court is alive to the fact that there are a large number of cases where, after acquisition land has been handed over to various corporations, local authorities, ter depositing compensation (for the acquisition) those bodies and authorities have been handed possession of lands. They, in turn, after development of such acquired lands have handed over properties; third-party interests have intervened and now declaration is sought under the cover of Section 24(2) to invalidate all such actions. As held by us, Section 24 does not intend to cover such cases at all and such gross misuse of the provisions of law must stop. Title once vested, cannot be obliterated, an express legal provision; in any case, even if the landowners' argument that after possession too, in case of payment of compensation, the acquisition would lapse, were for arguments' sake, be accepted, these third-party heir lands, lawfully acquired by them, without compensation of any sort. Thus, we have no hesitation to overrule the decisions in Velaxan Kumar and Narmada Bachao Andolan with regard to mode of taking possession. We hold that drawing of panchnama of taking possession is the mode of taking possession in land acquisition cases, thereupon land vests in the State and any entry or retaining the possession thereafter is unlawful and does not inure for conferring benefits under Section 24 SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.25 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.18026 of 2025 (O&M) Xxx” 16. Consequently, this Court has no hesitation to hold that t claim in the present writ petition is only an and no sympathy can be shown on account of construction raised later by the petitioners even challenging the acquisition proceedings. In such circumstances, has no other option but to this Court refrains from imposing any costs in the the discussion made hereinabove, time from the date of this judgment which the State w property, as the status of the petitioners is only now that of encroachers. 17. Accordingly, CWP No.1 18. Connected applications, if any, are also accordingly disposed of. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE JULY 24, 2025 shalini Whether Speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: CWP No.18026 of 2025 (O&M) Xxx” Consequently, this Court has no hesitation to hold that t claim in the present writ petition is only an attempt to hold on to the land and no sympathy can be shown on account of construction raised later by the petitioners, as they had taken a chance by even challenging the acquisition proceedings. In such circumstances, has no other option but to reject the plea of the writ petitioners. this Court refrains from imposing any costs in the the discussion made hereinabove, the petitioners are granted from the date of this judgment to vacate the land in dispute the State would be free to take over the possession of the acquired the status of the petitioners is only now that of encroachers. Accordingly, CWP No.18026 of 2025 Connected applications, if any, are also accordingly disposed (DEEPAK SIBAL) (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE 2025 Whether Speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Consequently, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the attempt to hold on to the land and no sympathy can be shown on account of construction raised later by as they had taken a chance by raising the same without even challenging the acquisition proceedings. In such circumstances, it reject the plea of the writ petitioners. However, this Court refrains from imposing any costs in the matter. In the light of he petitioners are granted two months to vacate the land in dispute, after ould be free to take over the possession of the acquired the status of the petitioners is only now that of encroachers. of 2025 is dismissed. Connected applications, if any, are also accordingly disposed (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.25 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document