Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balbir Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 February, 2025
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Vikas Suri
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:019442-DB
CWP-1537-2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-1537-2014
Reserved on: 22.01.2025
Pronounced on: 07.02.2025
BALBIR SINGH
.....Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Argued by: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate
Ms. Gitanjali, Advocate
Mr. Rohan Moudgil, Advocate
Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Deepak Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
Mr. P.P.Chahar, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and
Mr. Saurabh Mago, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. Pravindra Singh Chauhan, Advocate with
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate
Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur Manchanda, Advocate and
Ms. Saanvi Singla, Advocate for respondents-HSVP.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. In the instant case, a notification was issued under Section
4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of
1894'), was issued on 31.12.2013. The said notification was challenged
by the petitioner through his instituting the instant writ petition. The
instant petition came up for hearing before this Court, on 28.01.2014.
On the said date, this Court stayed both the issuance of further
notification, and dispossession of the petitioner.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:019442-DB
2. Ultimately the instant writ petition became allowed vide
judgment dated 05.09.2017, and the apposite notification was quashed
and set aside.
3. The said judgment of 05.09.2017, as passed by this Court,
became challenged by the State of Haryana before the Apex Court,
through its filing SLP No.9443 of 2019. Vide order dated 05.04.2019,
the Apex Court stayed the operation of the impugned judgment dated
05.09.2017. In the said matter, the Apex Court vide judgment dated
28.07.2022 set aside the impugned judgment passed by the Full Bench
of this Court.
4. The instant writ petition became remanded by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 21.02.2024. The operative part of the
said order is extracted hereinafter.
"...........Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and
the matters are remitted to the High Court for fresh
consideration of all the other issues on merits that have
been raised in the respective petitions in accordance with
law........"
5. In the above regard, it is not disputed, that the notification
as issued under Section 4 of the 'Act of 1894', was issued on
31.12.2013, and, when the date of issuance of the said notification, is
prior to the coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act,
2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 2013"). Therefore, in terms
of the verdict (supra), the acquisition proceedings became initiated as
such under the 'Act of 1894'. Consequently, the subsequently issued
declaration under Section 6 of the 'Act of 1894', even if the date of
making of the said declaration, was subsequent to the coming into force
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:019442-DB
of the 'Act of 2013'. Nonetheless, the trite factum of issuance of a
notification under Section 4 of the 'Act of 1894', rather on a date, but
prior to the coming into force of the 'Act of 2013', has the conspicuous
relevance and import, thus for thereby even validating the subsequently
issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894.
6. Furthermore, a perusal of reply on affidavit reveals that the
subject award, thus could not be passed owing to the interim orders
passed by this Court, which were further made absolute by this Court
vide order dated 05.09.2017, wherebys the notification qua the
petitioners was quashed in view of the full Bench judgment rendered in
case titled as 'Deepak Aggarwal and another Vs. State of Haryana
and others'. Thereafter, the said judgment of the full Bench of this
Court became set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as
'HSIIDC Vs. Deepak Aggarwal (Supra) and the instant writ petition
became remanded by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated
21.02.2024, wherebys the Hon'ble Apex Court made a direction for
maintaining status quo regarding possession. It was in view of the
above stay order being in operation till today, that neither a declaration
under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 could be made, nor the award could
be pronounced.
7. However, since the said non issuance of a declaration under
Section 6 of the Act of 1894, besides the non passing of the subject
award. Moreover, when also the assumption(s) of possession over the
subject lands when rather also remained uninitiated from the passings of
the interim/ final orders (supra), thus respectively by this Court and by
the Apex Court, therefore, it cannot be construed that the
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:019442-DB
authorities have not proceeded in accordance with law and/or the
acquisition proceedings become vitiated.
8. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the verdict
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as 'State of
Maharashtra Vs. M/s Moti Ratan Estate and Anr.' reported in AIR
2019 (SUPREME COURT) 4149, whereins it has been expostulated
that "if there is any stay over the action or proceeding by a Court of law,
in one or the other matter arising from the selfsame acquisition
proceedings in reference to Section 4 followed with Section 6 of the Act,
the authorities are said to be justified in the given facts and
circumstances to stay their hands and await the decision of the Court
and such a period during which there is a stay over the action or
proceeding by a Court of law in a matter, that has to be excluded for all
practical purposes, in computing the statutory period of two years in
passing of an award under Section 11 of the Act."
9. The import of the above expostulations, is that, the non
rendition of awards under the 'Act of 1894', when arises from stay
orders becoming granted by the Courts of Law, thereby the launching of
acquisition proceedings under the 'Act of 1894', thus would not become
lapsed, rather the Collector concerned, becomes empowered to, in terms
of Section 11 of the 'Act of 1894' thus make an award.
10. However, since in the instant case, thus a notification under
Section 4 of the Act of 1894, became issued, on 31.12.2013. Therefore,
since therebys the factual matrix appertaining to the instant case, rather
is almost similar to the factual matrix detailed in the judgment rendered
by the Apex Court in HSIIDC Vs. Deepak Aggarwal case (supra). In
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:019442-DB
sequel, when on the said inter se similar factual matrix, the Apex Court
in the verdict rendered in HSIIDC Vs. Deepak Aggarwal case (supra),
has declared that the date of issuance of a notification under Section 4
of the Act of 1894, has the conspicuous relevance for ensuring the
continuation of the acquisition proceedings, as become initiated
thereunders, to the extent that though the said launched proceedings
would continue, besides though the award is to be rendered in terms of
the Act of 1894, but the determination of compensation amount
thereunders rather is to be made through applying the statutory mandate
enclosed in the Act of 2013.
11. In sequel therebys, the acquisition proceedings are deemed
to continue irrespective of no declaration being made in terms of
Section 6 of the Act of 1894, especially when against the passing of the
said declaration, thus stay order(s) became respectively made by this
Court, and, by the Apex Court, whereupons in the face of the judgment
rendered by the Apex Court in AIR 2019 (SUPREME COURT) 4149,
the effect of the same, is that, it does not restrain the competent authorities to
continue with the already launched acquisition proceedings.
12. Therefore, the respondents concerned, are directed to
proceed with the acquisition proceedings drawn under the Act of 1894,
and to thereafter issue a declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894,
and subsequently pass an award under Section 11 of the 'Act of 1894' in
respect of the acquired lands, but the determination of compensation be
made in terms of the 'Act of 2013'. Furthermore, the petitioner is
directed to forthwith hand over encumbrance free possession of the
subject lands to the respondent concerned.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:019442-DB
13. 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
ill individualistic interest of the petitioners is rather to be furthered.
Resultantly, this Court finds no merit in the instant petition, and, is
constrained to dismiss it.
Final Order of this Court.
14. In aftermath, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition,
and, with the above observations, the same is dismissed. The impugned
notification is maintained and affirmed but as stated (supra) a
declaration be forthwith made under Section 6 of the Act of 1894,
subsequently the award be passed qua the subject lands under Section
11 of the 'Act of 1894' but compensation be determined in terms of the
'Act of 2013'.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
(VIKAS SURI)
07.02.2025 JUDGE
Ithlesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
