HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. Vs. M/S. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(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 Sec. 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 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 Sec. 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 simply for a declaration that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed under Sec. 24(2) of the Act, 2013 in which the acquisition under the Act, 1894 was not under challenge.

(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 Sec. 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 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 Sec. 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 and 2112/2023 (Total 15 cases)