Mukhtiar Singh & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 3709 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mukhtiar Singh & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 23 April, 2026

Author: Alka Sarin

Bench: Alka Sarin

                            234
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                                      CHANDIGARH

                                                                            CWP-26942-2016 (O&M)
                                                                            Date of Decision : 23.04.2026

                            Mukhtiar Singh & Ors                                               ... Petitioner(s)
                                                                  Versus
                            State of Haryana & Ors                                           ... Respondent(s)


                            CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
                                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI

                            Present :      Mr. Adarsh Jain, Senior Advocate with
                                           Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate and
                                           Ms. Ashanpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners.

                                           Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG Haryana.


                            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 14.04.1974

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 10.02.1976. The award was passed on 21.10.1976.

Thereafter, possession was taken vide rapat roznamcha No.76 dated

21.10.1976.

3. Initially, the present writ petition was allowed vide order dated

27.11.2017. Aggrieved by the same the respondents herein filed an appeal

authenticity of this order/judgment.

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 16.08.2017 filed on behalf of

respondent Nos.1 and 2, in Clause D and E, it has been stated as under :

"(D) Status of payment of compensation:

That as per record, total amount of compensation of

awarded land measuring 15.38 acres of village Sihi was

Rs.251331/ out of which an amount of Rs.244373/- has

been disbursed to the land owners, which is 97.23%. The

balance amount of Rs.6,958/- in respect of which the

landowners did not come forward to receive the payment,

is lying deposited in the Land Acquisition Collector's

common account. As far as the petitioners are concerned,

it is submitted that the petitioners are recorded as Gair

moursi over the land in question and the petitioners have

not received the payment amounting to Rs.12306/

including the payment of land, house and trees and

plants. The payment of land is amounting to Rs.6958 plus

Payment of house amounting to Rs-5048/- plus payment

of trees and plants amounting to Rs 300/-

(6958+5048+300=12306).

authenticity of this order/judgment.

(E) Status of Possession:

That as per record, the award of the acquired land in

question was announced on 21.10.1976 vide award

no.4 and the possession of the said land was taken and

handed over to HUDA on 21.10.1976 vide rapat no.76."

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 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

authenticity of this order/judgment.

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, 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

authenticity of this order/judgment.

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 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

authenticity of this order/judgment.

                                                                                  ( ALKA SARIN )
                                                                                      JUDGE



                              23.04.2026                                 ( RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI )
                              Yogesh Sharma                                       JUDGE