Holding

Acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act cannot be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and High Court judgments declaring such lapse are set aside.

Summary

The Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (HSIIDC) and the State of Haryana appealed against a Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment that declared land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to have "deemed lapse" under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The appeals were divided into two categories: (1) writ petitions that originally challenged the 1894 acquisition and later sought relief under Section 24(2); and (2) writ petitions filed solely for a declaration of lapse under Section 24(2) after the 2013 Act came into force. The Supreme Court, relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act cannot be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Consequently, the High Court’s judgments declaring such lapse were quashed. For the first category, the matters were remitted to the High Court to decide the original acquisition challenges on their merits, excluding the Section 24(2) issue. For the second category, the Court held that no deemed lapse occurs. All civil appeals were allowed and the appeals disposed of.

Issues considered

What is the effect of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act on acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
Can a court declare a deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) without adjudicating the merits of the original acquisition proceedings?
Does the decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal preclude the High Court's relief based solely on Section 24(2)?

Legislation cited

Subjects

Land acquisitionSection 24(2)Deemed lapseRight to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act 2013Land Acquisition Act 1894Civil appealQuashing judgmentRemand

Judgment

[2023] 3 S.C.R. 383 383

HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE A
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (HSIIDC) & OTHERS
v.
M/S HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 2052 of 2023) B
APRIL 11, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) –
C
In first category of cases, the acquisition proceedings were
challenged under the 1894 Act, much prior to the 2013 Act came
into force – Amendment applications were filed for the relief of
deemed lapse of acquisition u/s.24(2), 2013 Act – However, the
High Court without deciding the writ petitions on merits, allowed
the same – In the second category of cases, the only relief sought D
was u/s.24(2), 2013 Act – High Court allowed the said writ petitions
and declared that the acquisition w.r.t the lands in question is deemed
to have lapsed u/s.24(2), 2013 Act – On appeal, held: In the first
category of cases, impugned judgments passed by the High Court
declaring that the acquisition w.r.t the lands in question is deemed
to have lapsed u/s.24(2) of the 2013 Act are set aside – However, E
the matters are remitted back to the High Court to decide the main
writ petitions afresh in accordance with law and on their own merits
on other issues except the applicability of s.24(2) of the 2013 Act –
In the second category of cases, impugned judgments passed by
the High Court are set aside – There shall not be deemed lapse of F
acquisition in those cases – Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] G
1 SCR 783 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783 referred to Para 3
[2020] 3 SCR 1 followed Para 5 H
383
384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2052
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.11.2016 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 4015 of 2006.
With
B
Civil Appeal Nos. 2126, 2108, 2111, 2097, 2135-2136, 2142, 2139,
2140, 2144, 2146, 2145, 2152, 2129, 2128, 2130, 2131, 2153, 2127, 2155,
2156, 2154, 2151, 2133, 2134, 2132, 2062, 2063, 2071, 2084, 2085, 2086,
2090, 2088, 2098-2105, 2137, 2150, 2138, 2143, 2119, 2148, 2147, 2118,
2141, 2124, 2122, 2114-2117, 2113, 2123, 2121, 2125, 2157, 2056, 2059,
C 2058, 2068, 2073, 2078, 2079, 2065, 2067, 2072, 2077, 2082, 2053, 2055,
2064, 2070, 2057, 2083, 2106, 2094, 2095, 2089, 2092, 2093, 2087, 2091,
2109, 2110, 2112, 2120, 2149, 2054, 2060, 2074, 2061, 2080, 2081, 2066,
2075, 2076, 2096, 2069 and 2107 of 2023.
Alok Sangwan, Sr. A.A.G., B.K. Satija, A.A.G., Dr. Monika Gusain,
D Gurmeet Singh Makker, Nikhil Goel, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Kanu
Agrawal, Varun Chugh, Bhuvan Kapoor, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Vishwa
Pal Singh, B. K. Satija, Sumit Sharma, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Mrs. Monika
Gusain, Samar Vijay Singh, Sumit Kumar Sharma, Keshav Mittal, Ms.
Amrita Verma, Rajat Sangwan, Ms. Sabarni Som, Advs. for the
Appellants.
E
Jayant K Sud, A.S.G., Gopal Jain, Aashish Chopra, Mahabir Singh,
Vivek Sibal, Puneet Bali, Manoj Swarup, Kavin Gulati, Dhruv Mehta,
Narender Singh Hooda, R Basant, Sr. Advs., Mithilesh Kumar Singh,
Mrs. Manju Singh, Tarun Verma, M/s. Khaitan & Co., Amar Dave,
Ajay Bhargava, Mrs. Vanita Bhargava, Mrs. Abhisaar Bairagi, Mrs.
F Trishala Trivedi, Milind Sharma, Ms. Natasha Syal, Avish Bhati, Ms.
Pallavi Malhotra, Raj Kamal, Abhimanyu Tewari, Ms. Eliza Bar, Tushar
Bathija, Siddhant Saroha, Niketou Rio, Kundan Kumar Lal, A. N. Arora,
Ashok Kumar Singh, Shantwanu Singh, Ms. Pragya Singh, Akshay Singh,
Sunny Singh, Tripurari Ray, Abhishek Mishra, Rajat Rana, Ms. Anju
Kaushik, Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Ms. Shobha Gupta, Somiran Sharma,
G
Ms. Rupa Pathania, Ms. Nitika Sharma, Narender Kumar Verma, Jagjit
Singh Chhabra, Saksham Maheshwari, Sukant Vikram, Ms. Ankita
Patnaik, Ms. Astha Sharma, Srisatya Mohanty, Sanjeev Kaushik, Ms.
Mantika Haryani, Shreyas Awasthi, Himanshu Chakravarty, Ms. Ripul
Swati Kumari, Bhanu Mishra, Devvrat Singh, Ms. Muskan Surana, Ms.
H Manisha Ambwani, Aditya Singh, Shubham Singh, Rajiv Dalal, Pankaj
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFR. DEV. CORP. LTD. (HSIIDC) v. 385
M/S HONEYWELL INTL. (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

Yadav, Vaseem, Arun Rathi, Kamal Kishor, Aishwarya Wani, Ms. A
Aishwarya Wani, Ms. Anne Mathew, Tushar Bakshi, Pawanshree
Agrawal, Dr. M.S. Verma, Mahendra Kumar, Rajnish Kumar Jha, Vijay
Pal, Gagandeep Sharma, Sunklan Porwal, Veerendra Kumar, Dinesh
Bhati, Ms. Preeti Singh, Jasbir Singh Mmalik, Ms. Usha Nandini V., Ms.
Anzu. K. Varkey, Rajeev Singh, Aseem Mehrotra, Arun K. Sinha, Rakesh
B
Singh, S. D. Singh, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Ms. Shweta Sinha, Ms. Shweta
Singh, Ms. Meenu Singh, Siddharth Singh, Kartikay Bhargava, Ranbir
Singh Yadav, Puran Mal Saini, Patiraj Yadav, Ritesh Patil, Prateek Yadav,
Yogesh Yadav, Abhishek Sharma, Ms. Niharika Dudeja, Jose Abraham,
Rahul Goel, Ms. Anu Monga, Ms. Parul Parmar, Ms. Kriti, Rameshwar
Prasad Goyal, Nand Lal Sammi, Nishant Sharma, Aditya Soni, Ms. C
Adviteeya, Rakesh K. Sharma, Ankit Swarup, Neelmani Pant, Mukul
Kumar, Ms. Vidhi Goel, Sanjeev Ailawadi, Krishna Dev Yadav, Ms. B.
Vijayalakshmi Menon, Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Sachin Jain, Ajay Kumar
Aggarwal, Ved Parkash, Manoj Kumar Jha, Ashish Singh, Vishal, Kapil
Chaturvedi, Atul Sharma, Abhishek Agarwal, Dhawesh Pahuja, Vaibhav
D
Dwivedi for M/s. AP & J Chambers, Ravindra Bana, Siddharth Mittal,
Kshitiz Chauhan, Vaibhav Tomar, Ms. Shilpa G Mittal, Ms. Pushplata
Chaodhary, Sanchar Anand, Devendra Singh, Aman Kumar Thakur,
Karan Thakur, Vijay Kumar Singh, Ajay Nain, Sameer Singh, Ashish
Sheoran, Anmol Harna, M.L. Sharma, Rajat Sharma, Ms. Meenakshi
Sharma, Sushil K. Sharma, Surender Kumar Jain, Subhasish Bhowmick, E
Ankit Swarup, Ms. Kriti Dang, Vasudev Singh, Somvir Singh Deswal,
Ms. Amrit Kumari, S.S. Ahlawat, Kuldeep Singh Bhakar, Satbir Pillonia,
Diwan Singh Chauhan, Nischal Kumar Neeraj, Karan Kapoor, Manik
Kapoor, Shubham Bhalla, Aabhas Kshetarpal, Sanjiv Ghai, Siddhartha
Jha, Ms. Priyambika Mk Jha, Mohit Kumar Gupta, Ms. Mohira, Gagan
F
Gupta, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Gautam Bhardawaj, Arvind Kumar
Sharma, Sandeep Chhabra, Jinendra Jain, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla,
Parmanand Yadav, Abhishek Chaterjee, Karan S. Thukral, Bilal Sheikh
for M/s. Corporate Law Group, Senthil Jagadeesan, Sajal Jain, Ms.
Sonakshi Malhan, Yash Pal Dhingra, Sudarshan Rajan, Sonal Joshi,
Mahesh Kumar, Sarvam Ritam Khare, Shreeyash Uday Lalit, Abhinav G
Aggarwal, Krishnagopal Abhay, Ms. Runjhun Garg, Ishaan George,
Mukesh K. Verma, Davinder K. Lubana, Sumit Anchal for Yadav
Narender Singh, Bijender S. Chaudhry, Hitesh Kumar Sharma,
Akhileshwar Jha, S.K. Rajora, Ms. Vijay Lakshmi, Ms. Kajal Kumari,
Amit Kumar Chawla, Dr. Vipin Gupta, Advs. for the Respondent.
H
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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/
B 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,
C ‘HSIIDC’) and the State of Haryana have preferred the present appeals.
In some of the appeals, challenge is to the respective 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.

D 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 simply for a
E declaration that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question is
deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 in which
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,
F 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,
G 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,

H
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFR. DEV. CORP. LTD. (HSIIDC) v. 387
M/S HONEYWELL INTL. (INDIA) PVT. LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

2143/2023, 2119/2023, 2141/2023, 2122/2023, 2114-2117/2023, 2113/2023, A
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 B
the amendment applications for the relief of deemed lapse of acquisition
under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the grounds that neither the
possession was taken over nor the compensation was paid/tendered.
Without deciding the writ petitions on merits on other grounds, more
particularly the grounds on which the acquisition/acquisition proceedings
under the Act, 1894 were under challenge, solely relying upon the decision C
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 that the
acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed
under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. D
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 E
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 upon the
decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation F
(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 Bench in the G
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. H
388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A 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
B
Development Authority (supra), the submission on behalf of the some
of the original writ petitioners that as the possession report was not
placed on record and therefore actual possession was not taken over,
cannot be accepted.
6. Even the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective
C 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
D 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 petitions and has
disposed of the writ petitions only on the deemed lapse under Section
E 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the matters are required to be remanded to 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 State of
Haryana that once with respect to the landowners/writ petitioners, the
F 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 considered by the
High Court while considering the other issues on merits, more particularly
challenge to the acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894.
G
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all 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
H
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFR. DEV. CORP. LTD. (HSIIDC) v. 389
M/S HONEYWELL INTL. (INDIA) PVT. LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

by the High Court declaring that the acquisition with respect to the lands A
in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act,
2013 is/are hereby quashed and set aside. However, the matters 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, 2013. We
B
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 kept open to be
considered by the High Court in accordance with law and on their own
merits (except the submission of applicability of Section 24(2) of the C
Act, 2013).
8. Insofar as civil appeals mentioned at para 4 of this judgment
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 D
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.
E
Divya Pandey Appeals disposed of.
(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri and Roopanshi Virang, LCRAs)

F

G

H