Daya Nand & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 3864 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Daya Nand & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 28 April, 2026

Author: Alka Sarin

Bench: Alka Sarin

                            102
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                                      CHANDIGARH

                                                                           CWP-16736-2016 (O&M)
                                                                           Date of Decision : 28.04.2026


                            Daya Nand & 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. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

                                           Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG Haryana.


                            ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of

the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for

quashing the notification dated 06.05.1982 (Annexure P-1) issued under

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the

'1894 Act') and the declaration/notification dated 02.05.1985 (Annexure P-2)

issued under Section 6 of the 1894 Act as well as the award dated 01.05.1987

(Annexure P-3) on the ground that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed in

view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

(hereinafter referred to as the '2013 Act').

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the petitioners

are the owners in possession of a portion of the land measuring 05 kanals 0

marla situated in Khewat No.531min//473 Khatoni No.582 and Killa

No.1//23/1 (total 5K-0M) in Village Liwaspur, Tehsil and District Sonepat, as

authenticity of this order/judgment.

per jamabandi for the year 2008-09. On 06.10.1981 a notification was issued

under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. The petitioners herein challenged the same

by filing CWP No.510 of 1982 titled as "Zile Singh & Ors Vs. The State of

Haryana & Anr". On 26.04.1982 the State had made a statement that they

would be withdrawing the impugned notification and accordingly the writ

petition was dismissed as withdrawn. A second notification was issued on

06.05.1982 under Section 4 of the 1894 Act (Annexure P-1). No objections

under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act were filed. A declaration/notification was

issued on 02.05.1985 under Section 6 of the 1894 Act (Annexure P-2). The

award was announced on 01.05.1987 (Annexure P-3). The petitioners herein

challenged the notifications (Annexures P-1 and P-2) by filing CWP No.3327

of 1987 titled as "Kartar Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana & Ors."

wherein the acquisition was challenged on merits. The said writ petition was

dismissed by this Court vide order dated 03.02.2009 (Annexure P-4).

3. The present writ petition was filed in the year 2016 only on the

ground that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of the provisions

of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Initially, the present writ petition was

allowed vide order dated 30.11.2016. 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. Manohar Lal & Ors. [(2020) 8

SCC 129 = 2020 (4) RCR (Civil) 668].

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the

authenticity of this order/judgment.

petitioners are still in physical possession of the property and the

compensation has not been paid to them.

5. Per contra the learned counsel for the State has referred to the

short reply by way of an affidavit of Sh. Ashish Kumar, Land Acquisition

Collector, Urban Estate Department, Rohtak on behalf of respondent No.2 to

contend that in the present case the petitioners herein did not file any

objections under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act. Learned State counsel has

further pointed out to para Nos.8 and 9 of the affidavit wherein it has been

stated that vide rapat roznamcha No.501 dated 01.05.1987 the possession was

handed over to the beneficiary department and that the entire compensation of

₹34,91,466/- was tendered by the Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak at the

time of announcement of award dated 01.05.1987 and is lying deposited in

the account of the LAC and is available for disbursement to the landowners.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully

gone through the records.

7. 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

authenticity of this order/judgment.

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

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

authenticity of this order/judgment.

"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

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

authenticity of this order/judgment.

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."

8. 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

the prayer of the petitioners 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 the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners

nor any such contentions have been raised during the course of arguments. On

the other hand, respondent No.2 has filed his short reply dated 28.10.2025

stating therein that the possession was handed over to the beneficiary

department vide rapat roznamcha No.501 dated 01.05.1987 and the

compensation was tendered by the Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak.

authenticity of this order/judgment.

                                                                                    ( ALKA SARIN )
                                                                                        JUDGE




                              28.04.2026                                   ( RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI )
                              Yogesh Sharma                                         JUDGE