[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunil Dutt Sharma vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 22 April, 2026
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
218
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-23645-2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 22.04.2026
SUNIL DUTT SHARMA .... Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI
Present : Mr. Adarsh Jain, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Kamaldeep Kaur, Advocate and
Mr. Lakshya Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Sr. DAG Haryana and
Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Sharvi Dadhwal, Advocate, Mr. Siddhanth Arora, Advocate
and Ms. Ashna Singh, Advocate for respondent No.4.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ
in the nature of certiorari for declaring the acquisition proceedings to have
lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2013').
2. Briefly the facts relevant to the present lis are that on 31.07.2006
a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Act of 1894') was issued. Declaration under Section 6 of the
Act of 1894 was issued on 09.08.2007. The award was passed on 29.07.2008.
CWP-23645-2014 (O&M) -2-
Thereafter, possession was taken vide rapat roznamcha No.915 dated
02.06.2011. The acquisition came to be challenged by filing a writ petition
being CWP-11757-2008 titled as 'Sunil Dutt Sharma Versus State of Haryana
& Ors.' which was dismissed vide order dated 27.01.2010.
3. Initially, the present writ petition was allowed vide order dated
23.11.2016. Aggrieved by the same the respondents herein filed an appeal
before the Supreme Court. The said Civil Appeal along with the other
connected Civil Appeals as also the case titled as State of Haryana & Ors.
vs. Aalamgir & Ors. [(2025) 6 SCC 397], being the lead case, was allowed
and the matter was remanded back to this Court for reconsidering the issues
in view of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Indore
Development Authority vs. ManoharLal & Ors. [(2020) 8 SCC 129 = 2020
(4) RCR (Civil) 668].
4. As per the written statement dated 13.11.2025 filed on behalf of
respondent No.4, in para No.5, it has been stated as under :
5. That it is respectfully submitted that the award of
land measuring 1784 Acre 0 Kanal 2 Marla was
announced by DRO-cum-LAC, Faridabad on 15.07.2008,
22.07.2008 and 29.07.2008. Similarly, the award qua the
land in question was announced by the LAC on
29.07.2008 and the physical possession of the land in
question was taken vide Rapat Roznamcha No.915 dated
02.06.2011 and the compensation was duly tendered by
the LAC at the time of announcement of award. It is
CWP-23645-2014 (O&M) -3-
further submitted that in so far as the present petitioner
are concerned, the amount of Rs.30,794/- was duly
tendered by the LAC at the time of announcement of
award and subsequently, it was deposited in the Court of
Ld. ADJ, Faridabad vide the cheque No.231474 dated
01.03.2012'.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully
gone through the records.
6. Their Lordships in the case of Indore Development Authority
(supra) held as under :
"366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer
the questions as under:
366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in
case the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of
commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of
proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under
the provisions of the 2013 Act.
366.2. In case the award has been passed within the
window period of five years excluding the period covered
by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall
continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013
Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.
366.3. The word "or" used in Section 24(2) between
possession and compensation has to be read as "nor" or
CWP-23645-2014 (O&M) -4-
as "and". The deemed lapse of land acquisition
proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes
place where due to inaction of authorities for five years
or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the
possession of land has not been taken nor compensation
has been paid. In other words, in case possession has
been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is
no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid,
possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.
366.4. The expression "paid" in the main part of
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit
of compensation in court. The consequence of non-
deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case
it has not been deposited with respect to majority of
landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on
the date of notification for land acquisition under Section
4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in
accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case
the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34
of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of
compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of
land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with
respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more,
CWP-23645-2014 (O&M) -5-
-
compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the
"landowners" as on the date of notification for land
acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
366.5. In case a person has been tendered the
compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the
1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition
has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or
non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to
pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section
31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept
compensation or who sought reference for higher
compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition
proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013
Act.
366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is
to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section
24(1)(b).
366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894
Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by
drawing of inquest report/memorandum. Once award has
been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the
1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting
provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once
CWP-23645-2014 (O&M) -6-
possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section
24(2).
366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a
deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case
authorities have failed due to their inaction to take
possession and pay compensation for five years or more
before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for
land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as
on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders
passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of
five years.
366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise
to new cause of action to question the legality of
concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24
applies to a proceeding pending on the date of
enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not
revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen
concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question
the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen
proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the
treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition."
7. The Supreme Court, while remanding the matter for
reconsideration, granted liberty to the parties to raise all the contentions which
are germane to the adjudication of the writ petition before this Court. Though
CWP-23645-2014 (O&M) -7-
prayer of the petitioner in the present writ petition purely revolves around sub-
section (2) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013, however, neither any document
has been placed on the record as regards any subsequent developments by
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner nor any such
contentions have been raised during the course of arguments. On the other
hand, respondent No.4 has filed written statement dated 13.11.2025 stating
therein that the possession was taken vide Rapat Roznamcha No.915 dated
02.06.2011 and the compensation was deposited in the Court of learned ADJ,
Faridabad vide cheque No.231474 dated 01.03.2012.
8. In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
(supra), since the possession was taken vide rapat roznamcha No.915 dated
02.06.2011 and the compensation is lying deposited in the Court of learned
ADJ, Faridabad, the acquisition proceedings cannot be held to have lapsed.
Moreover, it has been held in the Constitution Bench case that in case
possession has been taken but compensation has not been paid then there is
no lapse and similarly if compensation has been paid but possession has not
been taken even then there is no lapse. Also, in view of the now settled law, it
is immaterial whether compensation was lifted by the landowners or not.
9. At this stage, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner states that possibly there can be no challenge to the acquisition nor
can the proceedings be held to have been lapsed in view of the judgment by
the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra). Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
CWP-23645-2014 (O&M) -8-
of the petitioner, however, seeks permission to withdraw the present writ
petition with liberty to avail his remedies, if any, as available in law.
10. Dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
(ALKA SARIN)
JUDGE
(RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI)
22.04.2026 JUDGE
Aman Jain
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
