Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 05.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Writ Petition No.1777 of 2017 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the contesting respondent herein and has declared that the acquisition of the land measuring 225 square yards as lapsed (deemed to have been lapsed) under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short the ‘2013 Act’), the State of Haryana and others have preferred the present appeal.

Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and having gone through the impugned judgment Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Neetu Sachdeva Date: 2023.03.20 and order passed by the High Court, it appears that even it was the 17:11:22 IST Reason:

In paragraphs 365 and 366, it is observed and held as under -

“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune contd..

Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki , (2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn.[Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki , (2014) 3 SCC 183] 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] 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 [(2018) 3 SCC 412], 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:

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 contd..

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.” In view of the above, once the compensation was already paid, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), there shall not be any deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Under the circumstances and in view of the above and applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), there shall not be any deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the 213 Act, as observed and held by the High Court.

In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.

The present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

.......................... J.

(M.R. SHAH) .......................... J.

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR) New Delhi;

March 17, 2023.

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 2240/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05-12-2017 in CWP No. 1777/2017 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh) THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAM KANWAR YADAV Respondent(s) (IA No. 43737/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 43738/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 43740/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 17-03-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.