HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (HSIIDC) & OTHERS versus M/S HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. on 11 April 2023

HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTUREDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (HSIIDC) & OTHERSv.

M/S HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

(Civil Appeal No. 2052 of 2023)

APRIL 11, 2023

[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in LandAcquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) –In first category of cases, the acquisition proceedings werechallenged under the 1894 Act, much prior to the 2013 Act cameinto force – Amendment applications were filed for the relief ofdeemed lapse of acquisition u/s.24(2), 2013 Act – However, theHigh Court without deciding the writ petitions on merits, allowedthe same – In the second category of cases, the only relief soughtwas u/s.24(2), 2013 Act – High Court allowed the said writ petitionsand declared that the acquisition w.r.t the lands in question is deemedto have lapsed u/s.24(2), 2013 Act – On appeal, held: In the firstcategory of cases, impugned judgments passed by the High Courtdeclaring that the acquisition w.r.t the lands in question is deemedto have lapsed u/s.24(2) of the 2013 Act are set aside – However,the matters are remitted back to the High Court to decide the mainwrit petitions afresh in accordance with law and on their own meritson other issues except the applicability of s.24(2) of the 2013 Act –In the second category of cases, impugned judgments passed bythe High Court are set aside – There shall not be deemed lapse ofacquisition 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. HarakchandMisirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014]1 SCR 783 – referred to.

383

A

B

CDEF

G

H

ACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2052of 2023.

From the Judgment and Order dated 07.11.2016 of the High Courtof Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 4015 of 2006.

WithB

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,C2058, 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,DGurmeet Singh Makker, Nikhil Goel, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, KanuAgrawal, Varun Chugh, Bhuvan Kapoor, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, VishwaPal Singh, B. K. Satija, Sumit Sharma, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Mrs. MonikaGusain, Samar Vijay Singh, Sumit Kumar Sharma, Keshav Mittal, Ms.Amrita Verma, Rajat Sangwan, Ms. Sabarni Som, Advs. for theAppellants.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.FTrishala Trivedi, Milind Sharma, Ms. Natasha Syal, Avish Bhati, Ms.Pallavi Malhotra, Raj Kamal, Abhimanyu Tewari, Ms. Eliza Bar, TusharBathija, 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. AnjuKaushik, Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Ms. Shobha Gupta, Somiran Sharma,GMs. Rupa Pathania, Ms. Nitika Sharma, Narender Kumar Verma, JagjitSingh Chhabra, Saksham Maheshwari, Sukant Vikram, Ms. AnkitaPatnaik, Ms. Astha Sharma, Srisatya Mohanty, Sanjeev Kaushik, Ms.Mantika Haryani, Shreyas Awasthi, Himanshu Chakravarty, Ms. RipulSwati Kumari, Bhanu Mishra, Devvrat Singh, Ms. Muskan Surana, Ms.HManisha Ambwani, Aditya Singh, Shubham Singh, Rajiv Dalal, Pankaj

Yadav, Vaseem, Arun Rathi, Kamal Kishor, Aishwarya Wani, Ms.Aishwarya Wani, Ms. Anne Mathew, Tushar Bakshi, PawanshreeAgrawal, Dr. M.S. Verma, Mahendra Kumar, Rajnish Kumar Jha, VijayPal, Gagandeep Sharma, Sunklan Porwal, Veerendra Kumar, DineshBhati, Ms. Preeti Singh, Jasbir Singh Mmalik, Ms. Usha Nandini V., Ms.Anzu. K. Varkey, Rajeev Singh, Aseem Mehrotra, Arun K. Sinha, RakeshSingh, S. D. Singh, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Ms. Shweta Sinha, Ms. ShwetaSingh, Ms. Meenu Singh, Siddharth Singh, Kartikay Bhargava, RanbirSingh 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, RameshwarPrasad Goyal, Nand Lal Sammi, Nishant Sharma, Aditya Soni, Ms.Adviteeya, Rakesh K. Sharma, Ankit Swarup, Neelmani Pant, MukulKumar, Ms. Vidhi Goel, Sanjeev Ailawadi, Krishna Dev Yadav, Ms. B.Vijayalakshmi Menon, Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Sachin Jain, Ajay KumarAggarwal, Ved Parkash, Manoj Kumar Jha, Ashish Singh, Vishal, KapilChaturvedi, Atul Sharma, Abhishek Agarwal, Dhawesh Pahuja, VaibhavDwivedi for M/s. AP & J Chambers, Ravindra Bana, Siddharth Mittal,Kshitiz Chauhan, Vaibhav Tomar, Ms. Shilpa G Mittal, Ms. PushplataChaodhary, Sanchar Anand, Devendra Singh, Aman Kumar Thakur,Karan Thakur, Vijay Kumar Singh, Ajay Nain, Sameer Singh, AshishSheoran, Anmol Harna, M.L. Sharma, Rajat Sharma, Ms. MeenakshiSharma, Sushil K. Sharma, Surender Kumar Jain, Subhasish Bhowmick,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, ManikKapoor, Shubham Bhalla, Aabhas Kshetarpal, Sanjiv Ghai, SiddharthaJha, Ms. Priyambika Mk Jha, Mohit Kumar Gupta, Ms. Mohira, GaganGupta, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Gautam Bhardawaj, Arvind KumarSharma, Sandeep Chhabra, Jinendra Jain, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla,Parmanand Yadav, Abhishek Chaterjee, Karan S. Thukral, Bilal Sheikhfor 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, AbhinavAggarwal, Krishnagopal Abhay, Ms. Runjhun Garg, Ishaan George,Mukesh K. Verma, Davinder K. Lubana, Sumit Anchal for YadavNarender 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.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

386SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2023] 3 S.C.R.

AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonjudgments and orders passed in C.W.P. No. 4015/2006 and other alliedwrit petitions, by which the High Court has declared that the acquisition/Bacquisition proceedings with respect to the respective lands in questionhas/have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensationand Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and ResettlementAct, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 2013’), the Haryana StateIndustrial 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) andorder(s) passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition withrespect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section24(2) of the Act, 2013.

D2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the present group ofappeals can be divided into two categories, namely, (1) before the HighCourt the respective original writ petitioners like C.W.P. No. 4015/2006and other allied writ petitions also challenged the acquisition proceedingsunder the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘Act, 1894’) on numberof grounds, and (2) the writ petitions which were filed simply for aEdeclaration that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question isdeemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 in whichthe 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,F2063/2023, 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,G2089/2023, 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

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 theacquisition/acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894, which, as such,were filed much prior to the Act, 2013 came into force and submittedthe amendment applications for the relief of deemed lapse of acquisitionunder Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the grounds that neither thepossession was taken over nor the compensation was paid/tendered.Without deciding the writ petitions on merits on other grounds, moreparticularly the grounds on which the acquisition/acquisition proceedingsunder the Act, 1894 were under challenge, solely relying upon the decisionof this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation v.Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183, theHigh Court has allowed the writ petitions and has declared that theacquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsedunder 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 (Total15 cases).

4. All these appeals fall in other category, namely, in which theonly 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 thatthe acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to havelapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, solely relying upon thedecision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation(supra).

5. Insofar as the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed bythe High Court declaring that the acquisition with respect to the lands inquestion is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013is concerned, in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench in thecase of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Others Etc.,reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, in the writ petitions which were filedonly for such relief and which were filed after the Act, 2013 came intoforce are concerned, the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed bythe High Court granting the relief under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013is/are unsustainable.

AB

C

D

E

F

GH

AB

C

D

E

F

GH

A In some of the cases, learned counsel appearing on behalf of theoriginal writ petitioners, whose writ petitions have been dismissed, havesubmitted that as the possession report was not furnished, they disputedthat 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 IndoreBDevelopment Authority (supra), the submission on behalf of the someof the original writ petitioners that as the possession report was notplaced on record and therefore actual possession was not taken over,cannot be accepted.

6. Even the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respectiveCoriginal writ petitioners of CWP No. 4015/2006 and other allied writpetitions – respondents in the civil appeals arising out of the impugnedjudgments 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 thisCourt in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), theDimpugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court grantingrelief 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 groundschallenging the acquisition/acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894on merits, though were the subject matter of writ petitions and hasdisposed of the writ petitions only on the deemed lapse under SectionE24(2) of the Act, 2013, the matters are required to be remanded to theHigh Court to consider the writ petitions on other grounds, i.e., challengeto the acquisition/acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894 on merits.However, the submission on behalf of the HSIIDC and the State ofHaryana that once with respect to the landowners/writ petitioners, theFpossession of the land in question is already taken over and even thecompensation has been paid/deposited, the acquisition/acquisitionproceedings under the Act, 1894 is/are not required to be quashed andset aside. However, the said aspect is required to be considered by theHigh Court while considering the other issues on merits, more particularlychallenge to the acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894.G

7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all thecivil appeals as per para 3 of this judgment, arising out of the impugnedcommon judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Punjab andHaryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 4015/2006 and other allied writpetitions are allowed. The impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passedH

by the High Court declaring that the acquisition with respect to the landsin question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act,2013 is/are hereby quashed and set aside. However, the matters areremitted back to the High Court to decide and dispose of the main writpetitions afresh in accordance with law and on their own merits on otherissues except the applicability of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Werequest the High Court to finally decide and dispose of the writ petitionson remand at the earliest and preferably within a period of nine monthsfrom the date of receipt of the present order. All contentions and defenceswhich are available to the respective parties are kept open to beconsidered by the High Court in accordance with law and on their ownmerits (except the submission of applicability of Section 24(2) of theAct, 2013).

8. Insofar as civil appeals mentioned at para 4 of this judgmentare concerned, all these appeals are allowed. The impugned judgmentsand orders passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition withrespect to the lands in question are deemed to have lapsed under section24(2) of the Act, 2013 are hereby quashed and set aside. There shall notbe deemed lapse of acquisition in those cases also as observed and heldby 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 Virang, LCRAs)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H