Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (hsiidc) & Others v. M/S Honeywell International (india) Pvt. Ltd.

M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgments and orders passed in C.W.P. No. 4015/2006 and other allied writ petitions, by which the High Court has declared that the acquisition/ acquisition proceedings with respect to the respective lands in question has/have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 2013’), the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (for short, ‘HSIIDC’) and the State of Haryana have preferred the present appeals. In some of the appeals, challenge is to the respective judgm ent(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court declaring that the ac quisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. 2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the present group of appeals can be divided into two categories, namely, (1) before the High Court the respective original writ petitioners like C.W.P. No. 4015/2006 and other allied writ petitions also challenged the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘Act, 1894’) on number of grounds, and (2) the writ petitions which were filed simpl y for a declaration that the acquisition with respect to the lands in ques tion is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 in whic h the acquisition under the Act, 1894 was not under challenge. Civil Appeal Nos. 2052/2023, 2108/2023, 2111/2023, 2097/2023, 2144/2023, 2146/2023, 2145/2023, 2129/2023, 2153/2023, 2062/2023, 2063/2023, 2071/2023, 2084/2023, 2085/2023, 2086/2023, 2090/2023, 2088/2023, 2148/2023, 2147/2023, 2056/2023, 2059/2023, 2058/2023, 2068/2023, 2073/2023, 2078/2023, 2079/2023, 2065/2023, 2067/2023, 2072/2023, 2077/2023, 2082/2023, 2053/2023, 2055/2023, 2064/2023, 2070/2023, 2057/2023, 2083/2023, 2106/2023, 2094/2023, 2095/2023, 2089/2023, 2092/2023, 2093/2023, 2087/2023, 2091/2023, 2109/2023, 2110/2023, 2054/2023, 2060/2023, 2074/2023, 2061/2023, 2080/2023, 2081/2023, 2066/2023, 2075/2023, 2076/2023, 2096/2023, 2069/2023, 2107/2023, 2126/2023, 2140/2023, 2152/2023, 2130/2023, 2131/2023, 2133/2023, 2134/2023, 2132/2023, 2098-2105/2023, 2150/2023, 2138/2023, 387 2143/2023, 2119/2023, 2141/2023, 2122/2023, 2114-2117/2023, 2113/2023, 2121/2023, 2157/2023, 2120/2023 & 2149/2023 (total 80 cases) 3. In all these appeals, the issue relates to the first category, namely, where before the High Court, the original writ petitioners challenged the acquisition/acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894, which, as such, were filed much prior to the Act, 2013 came into force and submitted the amendment applications for the relief of deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the grounds that neither t he possession was taken over nor the compensation was paid/ten dered. Without deciding the writ petitions on merits on other grounds, mo re particularly the grounds on which the acquisition/acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894 were under challenge, solely relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 , the High Court has allowed the writ petitions and has declared tha t the acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Civil Appeal Nos. 2135-2136/2023, 2142/2023, 2139/2023, 2128/ 2023, 2127/2023, 2155/2023, 2156/2023, 2154/2023, 2151/2023, 2137/ 2023, 2118/2023, 2124/2023, 2123/2023, 2125/2023 & 2112/2023 (Total 15 cases). 4. All these appeals fall in other category, namely, in which the only relief was sought under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is concerned, the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, solely relying u pon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra). 5. Insofar as the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is concerned, in view of the decision of the Constitution Be nch in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Others Etc., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 , in the writ petitions which were filed only for such relief and which were filed after the Act, 2013 came into force are concerned, the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court granting the relief under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is/are unsustainable. HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFR. DEV. CORP. LTD. (HSIIDC) v. M/S HONEYWELL INTL. (INDIA) PVT. LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.] In some of the cases, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners, whose writ petitions have been dismissed, have submitted that as the possession report was not furnished, they disputed that the actual physical possession in their cases was not taken over. However, in view of the specific stand taken by the acquiring body/ beneficiary and the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), the submission on behalf of the some of the original writ petitioners that as the possession re port was not placed on record and therefore actual possession was not ta ken over, cannot be accepted. 6. Even the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective original writ petitioners of CWP No. 4015/2006 and other allied writ petitions – respondents in the civil appeals arising out of the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court in CWP No. 4015/2006, as such, have fairly conceded that in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) , the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court granting relief under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is/are unsustainable. However, it is prayed that as the High Court has not considered the other grounds challenging the acquisition/acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894 on merits, though were the subject matter of writ petition s and has disposed of the writ petitions only on the deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the matters are required to be remanded t o the High Court to consider the writ petitions on other grounds, i.e., challenge to the acquisition/acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894 on merits. However, the submission on behalf of the HSIIDC and the Sta te of Haryana that once with respect to the landowners/writ peti tioners, the possession of the land in question is already taken over and even the compensation has been paid/deposited, the acquisition /acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894 is/are not required to be quashed and set aside. However, the said aspect is required to be consid ered by the High Court while considering the other issues on merits, more particularly challenge to the acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, al l the civil appeals as per para 3 of this judgment, arising out of the impugned common judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 4015/2006 and other allied writ petitions are allowed. The impugned judgment(s) and order(s ) passed 389 by the High Court declaring that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the A ct, 2013 is/are hereby quashed and set aside. However, the matte rs are remitted back to the High Court to decide and dispose of the main writ petitions afresh in accordance with law and on their own merits on other issues except the applicability of Section 24(2) of the Act, 20 13. We request the High Court to finally decide and dispose of the writ petitions on remand at the earliest and preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of the present order. All contentions and defences which are available to the respective parties are ke pt open to be considered by the High Court in accordance with law and on their own merits (except the submission of applicability of Sect ion 24(2) of the Act, 2013). 8. Insofar as civil appeals mentioned at para 4 of this jud gment are concerned, all these appeals are allowed. The impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question are deemed to have lapsed under section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 are hereby quashed and set aside. There shall not be deemed lapse of acquisition in those cases also as observed and held by the High Court. 9. The present appeals stand disposed of in terms of the above. Divya Pandey Appeals disposed of. (Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri and Roopanshi Vir ang, LCRAs) HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFR. DEV. CORP. LTD. (HSIIDC) v. M/S HONEYWELL INTL. (INDIA) PVT. LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]