STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS versus AALAMGIR & OTHERS

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1460 : 2025 INSC 407

State of Haryana & Others v. Aalamgir & Others

(Civil Appeal No. 4052 of 2025)

18 March 2025

[B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration

The present appeals assail the orders passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in several writ petitions in respect of acquisition of various parcels of land from time to time by issuance of notifications u/ss.4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Headnotes

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4 and 6 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – The respondents land owners/subsequent purchasers have assailed the acquisition process – The validity of the acquisition were raised in the various writ petitions filed by them – However, pursuant to the enforcement of 2013 Act, fresh writ petitions were filed seeking relief under sub-section (2) of s.24 of the 2013 Act – In some of the impugned judgments, the High Court has followed the earlier judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and has granted relief to the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers – Correctness:

Held: 1. In the instant case, if these appeals have to be considered on merits then the judgment passed by the five-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority would have to be applied to the facts of each case – In the circumstances, this Court finds it just and proper to set aside the impugned orders and remand these matters to the High Court for reconsideration of the Writ Petitions filed by the respondents land owners/subsequent purchasers and to dispose of those Writ Petitions on the basis of the recent judgment of this Court in Indore Development Authority by applying the ratio and the observations of the said judgment to the facts of each case as they emanate in each of the cases. [Paras 7, 9]

2. Since this Court is remanding the matters to the High Court, the order of status quo which were prevailing in those cases may be continued till the disposal of the writ petitions by the High Court. [Para 11]

3. Further, liberty reserved to the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers to raise all available contentions with regard to the validity of the acquisition which have been undertaken under the LA Act of 1894 before the High Court. [Para 14]

4. Considering the long lapse of time between the quashing of the acquisition or a declaration that they have lapsed and the matters now being remanded to the High court for reconsideration and there being subsequent developments with regard to the subject land in question, liberty may be reserved to the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers to raise all contentions on the basis of equity and in accordance with law. [Para 16]

5. In certain cases there may be death of the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers and there has been no application filed for substitution of the deceased before this Court – The High Court directed to issue fresh notices to the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers if they have not appeared before the High Court in those cases. [Para 17]

6. If the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers wish to take advantage of the concessions or the consent orders made by the High Court on the basis of the concessions made by the State, the same shall be considered having regard to the respective contentions advanced at the Bar and in accordance with law. [Para 19]

Case Law Cited

Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal [2020] 3 SCR 1 : (2020) 8 SCC 129 – followed.

Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki [2014] 1 SCR 783 : (2014) 3 SCC 183 – referred to.

List of Acts

Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

List of Keywords

Land acquisition; Acquisition process; Validity of the acquisition; Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Land owners; Subsequent purchasers; Order of status quo; Subsequent development in respect of land acquired; Death of land owners; Fresh Notices; Remanding of matters to High Court; Advantage of the concessions; Consent orders; Indore Development Authority case.

Case Arising From

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4052 of 2025

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2017 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 5105 of 2017

With

Civil Appeal No(s). 401-403 and 2220 of 2024, Civil Appeal No(s). 4053, 4054, 4055, 4056, 4057, 4058, 4059, 4060, 4061, 4062, 4063, 4064, 4065-4067, 4068-4069, 4070, 4071, 4072, 4073, 4074-4077, 4078-4079, 4080, 4081, 4082, 4083, 4084, 4085, 4086, 4087, 4088, 4089, 4090, 4091, 4092, 4093, 4094, 4095-4104, 4105, 4106, 4107, 4108, 4109, 4110, 4111, 4112, 4113, 4114, 4115, 4116, 4117-4121, 4122, 4123, 4124, 4125, 4126-4130, 4131, 4132, 4133, 4134, 4135, 4136, 4137, 4138, 4139, 4140, 4141, 4142, 4143, 4144, 4145, 4146, 4147, 4148, 4149, 4150-4153, 4154, 4155, 4156, 4157, 4158, 4159, 4160, 4161, 4162, 4163, 4164-4170, 4171, 4172, 4173, 4174, 4175, 4176, 4177, 4178, 4179, 4180, 4181, 4182, 4183, 4184, 4185, 4186, 4187, 4188, 4189, 4190, 4191, 4192, 4193, 4194, 4195, 4196, 4197, 4198, 4199, 4200, 4201, 4202, 4203, 4204, 4205, 4206, 4208, 4209, 4210, 4211, 4212, 4213, 4214, 4215, 4216, 4217, 4218, 4219, 4220, 4221, 4222, 4223, 4224, 4225, 4226, 4227, 4228, 4229, 4230, 4231, 4232, 4233, 4234, 4235, 4236, 4237-4240, 4241, 4242, 4243, 4244, 4245, 4246, 4247, 4248, 4249, 4250, 4251, 4252, 4253, 4254, 4255, 4256, 4257, 4258, 4259, 4260, 4261, 4262, 4263, 4264, 4265, 4266, 4267, 4268 and 4269 of 2025.

Appearances for Parties

Advs. for the Appellants:

Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Lokesh Sinhal, Alok Sangwan, Sr. A.A.G., B.K. Satija, Birendra Kumar Choudhary, A.A.G., Shekhar Raj Sharma, D.A.G., Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv., Parveen Kumar, Raj Kishor Choudhary, Shakeel Ahmed, Ms. Pratibha Singh, Vikram Patralekh, Shree Pal Singh, Vishwa Pal Singh, Dr. Nirmal Chopra, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Kanu Agrawal, Bhuvan Kapoor, Varun Chugh, Krishna Kant Dubey, Shubham Bhalla, Akshay Amritanshu, Ms. Drishti Saraf, Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Nikunj Gupta, Ms. Aakanksha, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Sumit Kumar Sharma, Samar Vijay Singh, Rajat Sangwan, Ms. Nidhi Narwal, Ms. Sabarni Som, Annirudh Sharma, Aman Dev Sharma, Shikhar Narwal, Fateh Singh, Aniruddha Deshmukh.

Advs. for the Respondents:

Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Vangala Eswaraiah, Narender Hooda, Aashish Chopra, Deepak Nargolkar, Ms. Kaadambari Singh, Nidhesh Gupta, Ashish Aggarwal, Rameshwar Singh Malik, Manoj Swarup, Parthiv K. Goswami, Arunabh Chowdhury, Rajive Bhalla, Siddharth Yadav, Gagan Gupta, Manoj Swarup, Rishi Malhotra, S.K. Gangele, U.K. Uniyal, D Sheshadri Naidu, Mahabir Singh, Aakash Dahiya, Maninder Singh, Arunabh Chowdhury, Rajul Bhargava, Ms. Pinaki Misra, Dushyant Dave, Manoj Swarup, Sr. Advs., Sunny Kadiyan, Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Azmat Hayat Amanullah, Nitin Kaushal, Ms. Rebecca Mishra, Vishal Sinha, Ms. Aditi Gupta, Ms. Meera Kaura, Tejas Patel, Ritika Saini, Puru Pratap Singh, Ms. Manika Pandey, Ms. Zainab Hussain, Mehul Garg, Pawan Aneja, Praveen, Shiv Bhatnagar, Mrs. Pallvi Hooda, Yuvraj Nandal, Ms. Tannu, Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, Ms. Aditi Gupta, Rohit Chaudhary, Shreeji Bhavsar, Siddharth Mittal, Abhijeet Varshney, Darshan Sejwal, Deepak Agarwal, Sumit Kumar Sharma, Mrs. Shilpa G Mittal, Ms. Rupa Pathania, Somiran Sharma, Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Lokesh Baimad, Mattegunta Ramkrishna, Narender Kumar Verma, Shish Pal Laler, Hitesh Kumar, Hardik Giri, Atul, Pranav Singh Gautam, Ms. Kadambini, Ravi Panwar, Abhimanyu Tewari, Ms. Eliza Bar, Sidhant Awasthy, Siddhant Saroha, Soayib Qureshi, Sachin Jain, Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Vishal, Mrs. Subhadra Dwivedi, Aman Raj Gandhi, Rajnish Kumar Jha, Harsh Kinra, Apoorva Kinra, Dinesh Verma, Subhasish Bhowmick, Imran Khan, Inam-ul-haq, Anil K. Chopra, M/s V. Maheshwari & Co., Ronak Karanpuria, S. Senthil Elangovan, S. Krishnamoorthy, K. Kumaravadivel, C Dinakaran, Gurrick Jassar, Pranshu Dahiya, Yogesh Kumar Dahiya, Kripa Shankar Prasad, Sukant Vikram, Ashish Manral, Ms. Muskaan Chawla, Ms. Tanya Singh Kaurav, Mohd. Faisal, M/s Veritas Legis, Ananga Bhattacharyya, Ms. Devahuti Tamuli, Krishanu Barua, Aabhas Kshetarpal, Dhiliban Varadarajan, Harsh N Dudhe, Siddhartha Jha, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, Rohit Lochav, Sarthak Chiller, Kapil Kumar, Somvir Singh Deswal, Abhishek Deswal, Roshneel Singh, Bhupendra Dalal, Manoj Kumar, Kuldeep Singh Bhakar, Nischal Kumar Neeraj, Wills Mathews, Dhanesh M. Nair, Paul John Edison, Ms. Anila Tharakan Thomas, Rakesh Garg, Ashish Gopal Garg, Ms. Shweta Garg, Ms. Japneet Kaur, Madhav Gupta, Bikram Dwivedi, Manu Bhardwaj, G. Balaji, Vedant Singh, Vishisht Singh, Navneet Singh, Sandeep Bhiduri, Ankur Bansal, Sadre Alam, Kumar Gaurav, Davesh Bhatia, Jitesh Malik, Ms. Anisha Dahiya, Jatin Hooda, B.C. Bhatt, N D Kaushik, Satish Kumar, Vikas Verma, Mrs. Sapna Verma, Shafik Ahmed, Anamay Mishra, Aakriti Yunas, Padmanav Choudhury, Bhagwat Dayal, M/s Karanjawala & Co., Jawahar Chawla, Amit Chawla, Ms. Shelly Chawla, Ms. Zehra Khan, Ms. Delphina Shinglai, Siddharth Bambha, Shyam D. Nandan, Ms. Nandna Manon, Pankaj Yadav, Prateek Yadav, Ms. Diksha Rai, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Ms. Nina Nariman, Ms. Atiga Singh, Piyush Vyas, Piyush Vyash, Ms. Purvat Wali, Mrs. Purvat Wali, Ms. Apurva Sachdev, Ms. Shalu Sharma, Parveen Kumar, Krishan Kumar, Seemant K. Garg, Nitin Pal, Karan Kapoor, Yajur Bhalla, Manik Kapoor, Ms. Srishti Singla, Shubham Bhalla, Akansha Gulati, Ms. Ragini Sharma, Ms. Gauri Bedi, Alex Noel Dass, Ms. Aadya Kapoor, Divyansh Mishra, Rohit Pandey, Shantwanu Singh, Mrs. Pragya Singh, Akshay Singh, Rahul Dubey, Sunny Singh, B.S. Chadhry, Amit Kumar Chawla, Varun Varma, Ms. Niharika Dewivedi, Ms. Monika, Amitabh Pandey, Ravindra Bana, Siddharth Batra, Chinmay Dubey, Ms. Shivani Chawla, Ms. Archna Yadav, Parth Poonia, Rhythm Katyal, Gaurav Jain, Ms. Abha Jain, Mohit Kumar Daraad, Ms. Manya Kaushik, Satyen Srivastva, Shubham Kashyap, Gurmehar Vaan Singh, Daya Krishan Sharma, Rohit Vats, Yashdeep, Ankit Bhanot, Amir Yadav, Vineet Kumar Yadav, Mayank Aggarwal, Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal, Saurabh Gupta, Ananta Prasad Mishra, Ankit Swarup, Neelmani Pant, Hamd Tariq, Hamad Tariq, Yash Singhal, M/s Delhi Law Chambers, Rajiv Kataria, Ms. Debjani Das Purkayastha, Mrs. Sunita Punia, Prem Malhotra, Ms. Ansuiya, Shivaansh Maini, Ms. Divya Jyoti Singh, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Parmanand Yadav, Ms. Ankeeta Appanna, Ritesh Agrawal, Sunder Khatri, Ms. Priyanshi Sharma, Dhiraj Abraham Philip, Balraj Rathee, Febin Mathew Varghese, Naveen Richard, Ms. Achalika Ahuja, Ms. Priya Sharma, Kailash Chand Mudgal, Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Pawan Kumar, Ms. Nitipriya Kar, Tanuj Dixit, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Abhishek Garg, D.K. Garg, Dhananjay Garg, Gaurav Saini, Ms. Anubha Agrawal, Himanshu Jain, Somanatha Padhan, A.V.S. Raju, Akash Kakade, M/s. Krishna & Nishani Law Chambers, Anil C Nishani, Mrs. Divya Narayan, Krishna M. Singh, Vishwesh R. Murnal, Bharat Bhushan, Keshav Bansal, Karan Kapoor, Manik Kapoor, Ms. Srishti Singla, Shrey Kapoor, Rahul Narang, Jawahar Narang, Shreay Saini, Somesh Chandra Jha, Rakesh Dahiya, Praveen Kumar, Dr. Sukhdev Sharma, Karan Kapoor, O.P.Sehrawat, Manik Kapoor, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Mukesh Sharma, Raghav Awasthi, Dinesh Sharma, Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Dr. B.R.Saini, Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, Ketan Paul, Shish Pal Laler, Hitesh Kumar, Atul, Hardik Giri, Pranav Singh Gautam, Ms. Kadambini, Varun Tokas, R. C. Kaushik, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Jatin Vats, Naveen Kumar, Dr. Nirmal Chopra, Pardeep Dahiya, Deepak Goel, Ms. Mahima Benipuri, Aditya Goyal, Mrs. Archana Preeti Gupta, Aman Jha, Rishi Tutu, Raman Yadav, Kshitij Mayank, Vikram Nagpal, R. C. Kohli, Ayush Shekhawat, Sanchar Anand, Devendra Singh, Shiv Kumar, Aman Kumar Thakur, Abhishek Bhardwaj, Jasbir Singh Malik, Ms. Niharika Singh, Ms. Rhythm Bharadwaj, Ms. Suman Sharma, Varun Punia, Vikas Mehta, Ankit Vashisht, Divyanshu Kumar Srivastava, Abhinay, Ms. Parul Khurana, Aditya Singh, Shubham Singh, Kamal Kishor, Vaseem, Ankur Chawla, Rahul Pratap, Karan Gogna, Karan Kumar Gogna, Akshay Sahani, Akshay Sahni, Aditya Soni, Ranbir Singh Yadav, Prateek Yadav, Puran Mal Saini, Ms. Anzu K. Varkey, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Rajesh P., Jinendra Jain, D. Kumanan, Atul Kumar, Abhimanyu Sharma, Ms. Deepali, Amit Gupta, Rahul Thukral, Tarun Gupta, Shiv Charan Garg, Imran Khan, Parminder Singh Bhullar, Chritarth Palli, Praveen Bahadur, Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Ms. Akanksha Thapa, Ms. Kritika Sachdeva, Jappanpreet, Uzma Sheikh, Saurabh, M/s Karanjawala & Co., Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Utkarsh Kokcha, Sanchit Singh, Ashutosh Ghade, Ms. Sneha Balapure, Shiv Charan Garg, Imran Khan, Ms. Jahanvi Garg, Sumit Kansal, Vikas Verma, Mrs. Sapna Verma, Shafik Ahmed, Ms. Sapna Verma, Anamay Mishra, Ms. Aakriti Yunas, Aakriti Yunas, Padmanav Choudhury, Bhagwat Dayal, Bharat Bhushan, Keshav Bansal, Sabarish Subramanian.

Petitioner-in-person.

Respondent-in-person.

Caveator-in-person.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Order

Applications seeking condonation of delay in filing applications for setting-aside abatement in the case of deceased respondents/parties are allowed. Abatement is set-aside. Consequently, the applications seeking substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased respondents/parties are allowed.

1.1 Amended memos of parties shall be filed either by the learned counsel for the appellant-State or by the learned counsel who are appearing for the respondents.

1.2 The applications for condonation of delay in filing the Special Leave Petitions have been filed by the State of Haryana and other parties.

1.3 Learned counsel for the State submitted that in certain cases, delay in filing the Special Leave Petitions has been condoned subject to payment of costs in the range of Rs.10,000/- etc. In certain other cases, the delay has been condoned without imposition of any costs as such.

1.4 In some of these cases, the applications have been allowed and the delay has been condoned subject to payment of costs in certain cases. The details of the said cases are given in a tabular form as under:

Sr. No.

Item No.

Case No.

Delay in Filing the SLP(s) (In Days)

01

28

SLP(C) No.32689/2018

257

02

28.3

SLP(C) No.16448/2018

156

03

28.4

SLP(C) No.22215/2018

176

04

28.5

SLP(C) No.16462/2018

156

05

28.7

SLP(C) No.26841/2018

189

06

28.11

SLP(C) No.22213/2018

218

07

28.12

SLP(C) No.22221/2018

213

08

28.14

SLP(C) Nos.22216-22217/2018

198

09

28.17

SLP(C) No.16454/2018

220

10

28.18

SLP(C) No.16440/2018

204

11

28.19

SLP(C) Nos.16294-16297/2024

214

12

28.20

SLP(C) Nos.22218-22219/2018

233

13

28.21

SLP(C) No.16281/2024

237

14

28.22

SLP(C) No.16284/2024

237

15

28.23

SLP(C) No.16283/2024

237

16

28.24

SLP(C) No.16293/2024

286

17

28.25

SLP(C) No.16282/2024

224

18

28.26

SLP(C) No.16321/2024

145

19

28.27

SLP(C) No.16291/2024

248

20

28.28

SLP(C) No.16288/2024

248

21

28.30

SLP(C) No.16316/2024

252

22

28.31

SLP(C) No.26842/2018

252

23

28.32

SLP(C) No.16315/2024

254

24

28.34

SLP(C) No.16313/2024

254

25

28.35

SLP(C) No.16314/2024

254

26

28.36

SLP(C) Nos.16303-16312/2024

269

27

28.37

SLP(C) No.16275/2024

273

28

28.38

SLP(C) No.16280/2024

267

29

28.39

SLP(C) No.16298/2024

267

30

28.40

SLP(C) No.16456/2018

267

31

28.41

SLP(C) No.16279/2024

267

32

28.42

SLP(C) No.16277/2024

267

33

28.43

SLP(C) No.16437/2018

267

34

28.44

SLP(C) No.16276/2024

267

35

28.45

SLP(C) No.16302/2024

267

36

28.46

SLP(C) No.16292/2024

245

37

28.47

SLP(C) No.16301/2024

245

38

28.48

SLP(C) No.16299/2024

245

39

28.49

SLP(C) Nos.16266-16270/2024

246

40

28.50

SLP(C) No.16445/2018

284

41

28.53

SLP(C) No.26833/2024

276

42

28.54

SLP(C) Nos.26835-26839/2024

281

43

28.61

SLP(C) No.16435/2018

459

44

28.62

SLP(C) No.16453/2018

440

45

28.63

SLP(C) No.16464/2018

406

46

28.64

SLP(C) No.16442/2018

489

47

28.65

SLP(C) No.16443/2018

406

48

28.66

SLP(C) No. 16449/2018

406

49

28.67

SLP(C) No. 16436/2018

407

50

28.68

SLP(C) No. 16441/2018

398

51

28.69

SLP(C) No. 16459/2018

492

52

28.70

SLP(C) No. 16451/2018

462

53

28.71

SLP(C) No. 19843/2018

465

54

28.77

SLP(C) No. 9787/2019

390

55

28.78

SLP(C) No. 9788/2019

341

56

28.79

SLP(C) No. 9789/2019

341

57

28.80

SLP(C) No. 5437/2020

848

58

28.81

SLP(C) No. 29106/2019

949

59

28.83

SLP(C) No. 5550/2018

112

60

28.84

SLP(C) No. 24250/2018

195

61

28.85

SLP(C) No. 26833-26839/2018

188

62

28.86

SLP(C) No. 7997/2019

110

63

28.87

SLP(C) No. 7999/2019

114

64

28.88

SLP(C) No. 31944/2018

556

65

28.89

SLP(C) No. 31946/2018

559

66

28.90

SLP(C) No. 8003/2019

715

67

28.92

SLP(C) No. 10236/2019

390

68

28.93

SLP(C) No. 9790/2019

341

69

28.94

SLP(C) No. 9791/2019

341

70

28.95

SLP(C) No. 10228/2019

390

71

28.96

SLP(C) No. 14950/2019

404

72

28.97

SLP(C) No. 10808/2019

337

73

28.98

SLP(C) No. 16733/2024

349

74

28.122

SLP(C) No. 24835/2019

447

75

28.125

SLP(C) No. 2454/2020

526

76

28.126

SLP(C) No. 2554/2020

527

77

28.127

SLP(C) No. 29104/2019

588

78

28.128

SLP(C) No. 29107/2019

582

79

28.129

SLP(C) No. 29108/2019

946

80

28.133

SLP(C) No. 30217/2019

596

81

28.134

SLP(C) No. 30218/2019

556

82

28.136

SLP(C) No. 6582/2020

692

83

28.157

C.A. No. 401-403/2024

188

84

28.158

SLP(C) No. 19325-19328/2019

211, 225, 226

85

28.159

SLP(C) No. 21895/2018

249

86

28.161

SLP(C) No. 10198/2019

26

87

28.162

SLP(C) No. 7993/2019

111

88

28.163

C.A. No. 2220/2024

494

89

28.164

SLP(C) No. 32691/2018

257

90

28.165

SLP(C) No. 1541/2019

281

91

28.166

SLP(C) No. 4232/2019

617

92

28.167

SLP(C) No. 2991/2019

316

93

28.168

SLP(C) No. 4228/2019

316

94

28.169

SLP(C) No. 5257/2019

360

95

28.171

SLP(C) No. 8002/2019

715

96

28.173

SLP(C) No. 9556/2019

390

97

28.174

SLP(C) No. 10227/2019

390

98

28.175

SLP(C) No. 9786/2019

341

99

28.176

SLP(C) No. 10231/2019

408

100

28.177

SLP(C) No. 10807/2019

322

101

28.178

SLP(C) No. 10993/2019

333

102

28.179

SLP(C) No. 11859/2019

333

103

28.182

SLP(C) No. 14271/2020

519

104

28.184

SLP(C) No. 28204/2019

513

105

28.185

SLP(C) No. 6563/2020

772

1.5 The extent of delay in all these above cases is also noted by us. In the following cases there is no delay in filing the Special Leave Petitions:

Sr. No.

Item No.

Item No.

1.

28.1

SLP(C) No.9553/2017

2.

28.2

SLP(C) No.9553/2017

1.6 Having regard to the nature of the order which we propose to pass in these cases, we condone the delay in those Special Leave Petitions where applications are pending for condonation of delay. Consequently, in these cases where delay has not yet been condoned, the applications are allowed and the delay in filing the Special Leave Petitions is condoned, subject to payment of costs which is determined as follows:

S. No.

Delay in Filing the SLPs

Costs Imposed per SLP (In Rs.)

01.

Upto 200 Days

Rs.5,000/-

02.

201 – 500 Days

Rs.10,000/-

03.

501 – 1000 Days

Rs.20,000/-

04.

1001 – 1500 Days

Rs.30,000/-

05.

1501 - 2500 Days

Rs.40,000/-

06.

2501 - 3000 Days

Rs.50,000/-

1.7 In view of the above determination, the costs are ordered to be imposed in the following matters where delay has not been condoned:

Sr. No.

Item No.

Case No(s).

Delay In Filing the SLP(s) (In Days)

Costs Imposed per SLP

01

28.6

Diary No.28518 of 2017

190

Rs.5,000/-

02

28.8

Diary No.28697 of 2017

186

Rs.5,000/-

03

28.9

Diary No.28698 of 2017

187

Rs.5,000/-

04

28.10

Diary No.30627 of 2017

192

Rs.5,000/-

05

28.13

Diary No.32100 of 2017

220

Rs.10,000/-

06

28.15

Diary No.32119 of 2017

180

Rs.5,000/-

07

28.16

Diary No.32369 of 2017

223

Rs.10,000/-

08

28.29

Diary No.37830 of 2017

253

Rs.10,000/-

09

28.33

Diary No.37948 of 2017

251

Rs.10,000/-

10

28.51

Diary No.30 of 2018

310

Rs.10,000/-

11

28.52

Diary No.39 of 2018

298

Rs.10,000/-

12

28.55

Diary No.2691 of 2018

327

Rs.10,000/-

13

28.56

Diary No.3661 of 2018

295

Rs.10,000/-

14

28.57

Diary No.5317 of 2018

310

Rs.10,000/-

15

28.58

Diary No.5319 of 2018

310

Rs.10,000/-

16

28.59

Diary No.5941 of 2018

313

Rs.10,000/-

17

28.60

Diary No.6950 of 2018

320

Rs.10,000/-

18

28.72

Diary No.23152 of 2018

480

Rs.10,000/-

19

28.73

Diary No.23156 of 2018

459

Rs.10,000/-

20

28.74

Diary No.23157 of 2018

478

Rs.10,000/-

21

28.75

Diary No.23161 of 2018

468

Rs.10,000/-

22

28.76

Diary No.8876 of 2019

737

Rs.20,000/-

23

28.82

Diary No.28377 of 2021

783

Rs.20,000/-

24

28.91

Diary No.8880 of 2019

723

Rs.20,000/-

25

28.99

Diary No.18345 of 2019

380

Rs.10,000/-

26

28.100

Diary No.18349 of 2019

471

Rs.10,000/-

27

28.101

Diary No.18352 of 2019

457

Rs.10,000/-

28

28.102

Diary No.18354 of 2019

440

Rs.10,000/-

29

28.103

Diary No.18355 of 2019

457

Rs.10,000/-

30

28.104

Diary No.18357 of 2019

428

Rs.10,000/-

31

28.105

Diary No.18359 of 2019

380

Rs.10,000/-

32

28.106

Diary No.18367 of 2019

428

Rs.10,000/-

33

28.107

Diary No.18369 of 2019

391

Rs.10,000/-

34

28.108

Diary No.18373 of 2019

440

Rs.10,000/-

35

28.109

Diary No.18908 of 2019

474

Rs.10,000/-

36

28.110

Diary No.18912 of 2019

443

Rs.10,000/-

37

28.111

Diary No.18928 of 2019

394

Rs.10,000/-

38

28.112

Diary No.18960 of 2019

446

Rs.10,000/-

39

28.113

Diary No.19565 of 2019

453

Rs.10,000/-

40

28.114

Diary No.19598 of 2019

453

Rs.10,000/-

41

28.115

Diary No.19751 of 2019

393

Rs.10,000/-

42

28.116

Diary No.19829 of 2019

394

Rs.10,000/-

43

28.117

Diary No.20291 of 2019

449

Rs.10,000/-

44

28.118

Diary No.20292 of 2019

440

Rs.10,000/-

45

28.119

Diary No.20293 of 2019

455

Rs.10,000/-

46

28.120

Diary No.20296 of 2019

449

Rs.10,000/-

47

28.121

Diary No.20585 of 2019

444

Rs.10,000/-

48

28.123

Diary No.20755 of 2019

449

Rs.10,000/-

49

28.124

Diary No.24990 of 2019

609

Rs.20,000/-

50

28.130

Diary No.36905 of 2019

588

Rs.20,000/-

51

28.135

Diary No.151 of 2020

1045

Rs.30,000/-

52

28.137

Diary No.12898 of 2020

818

Rs.20,000/-

53

28.138

Diary No.25051 of 2020

1357

Rs.30,000/-

54

28.139

Diary No.1099 of 2021

1049

Rs.30,000/-

55

28.140

Diary No.27679 of 2021

776

Rs.20,000/-

56

28.142

Diary No.28405 of 2021

399

Rs.10,000/-

57

28.143

Diary No.29160 of 2021

783

Rs.20,000/-

58

28.145

Diary No.29614 of 2021

800

Rs.20,000/-

59

28.146

Diary No.31454 of 2021

809

Rs.20,000/-

60

28.147

Diary No.31463 of 2021

802

Rs.20,000/-

61

28.148

Diary No.31552 of 2021

761

Rs.20,000/-

62

28.149

Diary No.149 of 2022

1400

Rs.30,000/-

63

28.152

Diary No.22628 of 2022

836

Rs.20,000/-

64

28.153

Diary No.22632 of 2022

1237

Rs.30,000/-

65

28.154

Diary No.22636 of 2022

836

Rs.20,000/-

66

28.155

Diary No.18908 of 2023

2936

Rs.50,000/-

67

28.156

Diary No.19265 of 2023

2939

Rs.50,000/-

68

28.172

Diary No.8670 of 2019

722

Rs.20,000/-

69

28.180

Diary No.18364 of 2019

380

Rs.10,000/-

70

28.181

Diary No.18371 of 2019

391

Rs.10,000/-

71

28.183

Diary No.28351 of 2019

465

Rs.10,000/-

72

28.186

Diary No.24255 of 2020

1379

Rs.30,000/-

73

28.187

Diary No.28725 of 2020

1394

Rs.30,000/-

74

28.190

Diary No.18989 of 2023

2937

Rs.50,000/-

75

28.191

Diary No.20110 of 2023

2296

Rs.40,000/-

76

28.192

Diary No.60331 of 2024

753

Rs.20,000/-

The costs imposed shall be deposited with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre on or before 05.05.2025.

2. Leave granted.

3. These appeals assail the orders passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in several writ petitions in respect of acquisition of various parcels of land from time to time by issuance of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “LA Act, 1894”). The respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers have assailed the acquisition process. It may be that in certain cases the contentions with regard to the validity of the acquisition were raised in the Writ Petitions filed by them. However, the fact remains that pursuant to the enforcement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “2013 Act”), fresh Writ Petitions were filed seeking relief under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act. In certain cases, amendments to the pending Writ Petitions may have also been made while in certain other Writ Petitions while assailing the process of acquisition under Sections 4 and 6 as well as under other provisions of the 1894 Act, applications seeking relief under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act have also been made. Various contentions were also raised under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act before the High Court.

4. At this stage, it is necessary to note that this Court, in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183 (“Pune Municipal Corporation”) had interpreted sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act by granting relief on the basis of the said interpretation. Thereafter, the matter was considered by a five-Judge Bench of this Court which was the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129 (“Indore Development Authority”), which set aside the earlier judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation. Paragraphs 365 to 367 of the judgment in Indore Development Authority are extracted as under:

“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 274] is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 274] has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. State of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353: (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 298] cannot be said to be laying down good law, is overruled and other decisions following the same are also overruled. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra [Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra, (2018) 3 SCC 412 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 426] , the aspect with respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether “or” has to be read as “nor” or as “and” was not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in the present judgment.

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 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 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 proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.

367. Let the matters be placed before appropriate Bench for consideration on merits.”

5. It must be mentioned at this stage that in some of the impugned judgments, the High Court has followed the earlier judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and has granted relief to the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers.

6. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the State of Haryana and others have preferred these appeals.

7. We wish to observe that if, today, these appeals have to be considered on merits then obviously the judgment passed by the five-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority would have to be applied to the facts of each case. It would call for a determination of facts as stated in Paragraphs 366.3 and 366.4 of the said judgment as well as the other relevant paragraphs of the said judgment.

8. The determination of the factual aspects in each of these cases would inevitably call for the consideration of the original records and hearing of the arguments by the respective parties on the factual aspects of each of these cases.

9. In the circumstances, we find it just and proper to set aside the impugned orders and remand these matters to the High Court for reconsideration of the Writ Petitions filed by the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers and to dispose of those Writ Petitions on the basis of the recent judgment of this Court in Indore Development Authority by applying the ratio and the observations of the said judgment to the facts of each case as they emanate in each of the cases.

10. At this stage, learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the respondents submitted that during the pendency of the Writ Petitions before the High Court and thereafter during the pendency of these appeals before this Court the respondents had the benefit of orders of status quo. Since this Court is remanding the matters to the High Court, the said orders of status quo may be continued in those cases where such orders prevail till the disposal of the writ petitions.

11. Learned Solicitor General appearing for the appellants very fairly submitted that since this Court is remanding the matters to the High Court, the order of status quo which were prevailing in those cases may be continued till the disposal of the writ petitions by the High Court.

12. In the circumstances, we find that the order of status quo prevailing in the Writ Petitions preferred by the respondents herein ought to continue till the disposal of the Writ Petitions by the High Court.

13. Learned senior counsel and learned counsel appearing for the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers further submitted that there were certain contentions raised with regard to the validity of the acquisition itself inasmuch as the process undertaken under Sections 4 and 6 and other provisions of the LA Act 1894 were also assailed apart from contentions being raised under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act. That since the High Court has disposed of the writ petitions and granted relief on the basis of the earlier judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation, the validity of the acquisition as such may not have been gone into, inasmuch as only sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act may have been applied and relief may have been granted to the parties. Therefore, liberty may be reserved to the respondents to raise all available contentions on the validity of the acquisition itself.

14. Take note of the said contention in such cases, we reserve liberty to the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers to raise all available contentions with regard to the validity of the acquisition which have been undertaken under the LA Act of 1894 before the High Court. It is needless to observe that those contentions would be considered on their own merits de hors any contention raised under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act.

15. It was further contended by learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers that between the period of the impugned orders of the High court and today when the matters are being remanded to the High Court for reconsideration there have been certain developments, there may be third party rights created, there may be other developmental activities which have taken place on the land sought to be acquired. This is because there may have been quashing of the acquisition notifications and/or orders being passed by holding that there was lapse of acquisition under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act and further on the basis of other contentions which were accepted by the High Court and there may also have been release of those lands to the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers as a consequence.

16. Learned senior counsel and learned counsel for respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers contended that having regard to the long lapse of time between the quashing of the acquisition or a declaration that they have lapsed and the matters now being remanded to the High court for reconsideration and there being subsequent developments with regard to the subject land in question, liberty may be reserved to the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers to raise all contentions on the basis of equity and in accordance with law. We find that such a request made is reasonable and in the circumstances, we reserve liberty to the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers to raise those contentions before the High Court. Obviously appellant-State will have an opportunity to also oppose those contentions in accordance with law.

17. It is further noted that in certain cases there may be death of the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers and there has been no application filed for substitution of the deceased before this Court. Since we are remanding the matters to the High Court, it is obvious that the High Court will issue fresh notices to the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers if they have not appeared before the High Court in those cases and where there is demise of any respondent, the legal heirs have to be impleaded having regard to the applications that are to be filed wherever there are no applications filed for impleadment of legal heirs of deceased respondents herein.

In respect of other cases where the parties are represented by their respective counsel before this Court, we find that they ought to be permitted to appear before the High Court on 05.05.2025 without expecting any separate notices to be issued to them by the High Court. However, if for any reason, there is non-appearance of the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers who are writ petitioners before the High Court then fresh notices may also be issued to the Writ Petitioners before the High Court either through their counsel or directly to the said parties.

18. Learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers submitted that in several cases the State has made concessions before the High Court and there may have also been consent orders made by the High Court based on the concessions of the State. Since we are not interfering with the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order(s) and are remanding the matters to the High Court purely on the basis of the recent judgment of this Court in Indore Development Authority, we do not wish to make any observations on the said concessions made on behalf of the State or any consent orders passed by the High Court on the basis of the concessions made by the State.

19. It is needless to observe that if the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers wish to take advantage of the concessions or the consent orders made by the High Court on the basis of the concessions made by the State, the same shall be considered having regard to the respective contentions advanced at the Bar and in accordance with law.

20. All other contentions which are germane to the adjudication of the Writ Petitions could be raised by both sides.

21. We place on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by learned counsel, Mrs. Vanshaja Shukla and Ms. Diksha Rai Goswami for the respondents-land owners and Mr. Akshay Amritanshu and Mr. Samar Vijay Singh for the appellant-State as nodal counsel in these appeals.

22. The costs imposed shall be deposited with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre on or before 05.05.2025. In case the amounts of costs are not deposited, the High Court shall not hear the appellants herein until the filing of copies of the receipts/acknowledgement before the Registry of this Court as well as the High Court and by serving a copy of the same to the respondents’ counsel herein.

These appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

We reiterate that we have not made any observation on the merits of the matters.

Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.