-
by sayum
14 April 2026 2:30 PM
In a recent judgment, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh upheld the land acquisition proceedings for Gurugram's development and utilization of land for residential, commercial, and institutional purposes in Sector 57. The court, in its decision, stated that the petitioners' plea to quash the acquisition notifications could not be granted.
The judgment, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari, revolves around the application of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which allows landowners to claim the lapsing of earlier acquisition proceedings if certain statutory conditions are met.
The court emphasized the importance of two critical elements for barring the acquiring authority or enabling landowners to claim the lapsing of acquisition proceedings - the necessity of tendering compensation and the assumption of possession by the acquiring authority.
The court referenced the judgment in "Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal," highlighting that possession and compensation are pivotal. The ruling clarified, "In case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken, then there is no lapse."
The judgment revealed that the acquiring authority had assumed possession of the lands in question and had tendered compensation as determined in an award. The court stated, "An amount of Rs.52,15,17,447/- became disbursed to the landowners concerned, while the balance compensation amount of Rs.20,91,57,001/- is readily available for its becoming available to be disbursed to the erstwhile landowners concerned."
Additionally, the court noted that the predecessor(s)-in-interest of the petitioners had filed a reference petition seeking enhancement of compensation, implicitly accepting the validity of the acquisition proceedings. This acknowledgment, the court observed, estopped the petitioners from challenging the proceedings' validity.
The judgment made it clear that the land in question was earmarked for a public purpose, including service roads, sector dividing roads, and clinic sites or nursery schools. Therefore, the court concluded that any retention of the land by the petitioners was unlawful.
In light of these factors, the High Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, imposing costs of Rs. 50,000 to be deposited immediately.
This judgment sets a precedent for land acquisition cases and reinforces the significance of adhering to statutory requirements for lapsing of acquisition proceedings.
Date: October 9, 2023
Rattan Lal and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others"
