Dismissed¶61

Sunil Dutt Sharma v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Apr 2026CWP/23645/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 24(2) RFCTLARR Act 2013 lapse of acquisition; Section 24(1)(a) and 24(1)(b); Indore Development Authority vs. ManoharLal (2020) 8 SCC 129 Constitution Bench; State of Haryana vs. Aalamgir (2025) 6 SCC 397 remand; Land Acquisition Act 1894 Sections 4, 6, 16, 31, 31(1), 34; rapat roznamcha No.915 dated 02.06.2011 possession; deposit of compensation in court of ADJ Faridabad; tender under Section 31(1); non-lifting of compensation immaterial; award 29.07.2008; 1784 acres Faridabad; Sunil Dutt Sharma vs. State of Haryana; CWP-23645-2014 O&M; dismissed as withdrawn with liberty.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to avail his remedies, if any, as available in law; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶61

Sunil Dutt Sharma Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to avail his remedies, if any, as available in law; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 stand lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, given that possession was taken on 02.06.2011 and compensation was tendered and deposited in court.

¶14

Court's answer

In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority (supra), since 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.

¶56

Ratio / Principle

In view of the now settled law, it is immaterial whether compensation was lifted by the landowners or not.

¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Alka Sarin, J., oral; Ramesh Chander Dimri, J.) — CWP-23645-2014 (O&M), decided 22.04.2026. Petitioner sought certiorari declaring land acquisition proceedings (Section 4 notification dated 31.07.2006; Section 6 declaration dated 09.08.2007; award dated 29.07.2008, Land Acquisition Act, 1894) lapsed under Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Initially allowed on 23.11.2016, the petition was remanded by the Supreme Court (lead case: State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Aalamgir & Ors., (2025) 6 SCC 397) for reconsideration in view of the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority vs. ManoharLal & Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. On remand, noting possession taken vide rapat roznamcha No.915 dated 02.06.2011 and compensation (Rs.30,794/-) lying deposited in the Court of the learned ADJ, Faridabad, the Court held that the acquisition proceedings cannot be held to have lapsed and that it is immaterial whether the landowners lifted the compensation. Senior counsel for the petitioner conceded no challenge to the acquisition was possible and sought withdrawal; the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue available remedies, pending applications disposed of.

¶1

218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP-23645-2014 (O&M) Date of Decision : 22.04.2026

SUNIL DUTT SHARMA

…. Petitioner

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS …. Respondents

¶7

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

¶8

Present : Mr. Adarsh Jain, Senior Advocate with

¶9

Ms. Kamaldeep Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Lakshya Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Sr. DAG Haryana and Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶11

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Senior Advocate with

¶12

Ms. Sharvi Dadhwal, Advocate, Mr. Siddhanth Arora, Advocate and Ms. Ashna Singh, Advocate for respondent No.4.

¶13

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

¶14

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’).

¶15

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.

¶16

AMAN JAIN 2026.04.23 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶17

CWP-23645-2014 (O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

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.

¶20

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] .

¶21

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 :

¶22

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

¶23

AMAN JAIN 2026.04.23 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶24

CWP-23645-2014 (O&M)

¶25

-3-

¶26

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’.

¶27

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records.

¶28

Their Lordships in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) held as under :

¶29

“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer

¶30

the questions as under:

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.

¶34

366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between

¶35

possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or

¶36

AMAN JAIN 2026.04.23 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶37

-4-

¶38

CWP-23645-2014 (O&M)

¶39

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 nondeposit 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,

¶40

AMAN JAIN 2026.04.23 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶41

-5-

¶42

CWP-23645-2014 (O&M)

¶43

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.

¶44

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.

¶45

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).

¶46

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

¶47

AMAN JAIN 2026.04.23 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶48

CWP-23645-2014 (O&M) -6-

¶49

possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).

¶50

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.

¶51

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.”

¶52

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

¶53

AMAN JAIN 2026.04.23 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶54

CWP-23645-2014 (O&M) -7-

¶55

prayer of the petitioner in the present writ petition purely revolves around subsection (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.

¶56

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

¶57

AMAN JAIN 2026.04.23 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶58

-8-

¶59

CWP-23645-2014 (O&M)

¶60

of the petitioner, however, seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to avail his remedies, if any, as available in law.

¶61