Dinesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others

CWP No.26876 of 2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
116
CWP No.26876 of 2026
rd
Date of decision: September 3 , 2026
Dinesh Kumar
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DIVYA SHARMA
Present: Mr. Sahib Gurdeep Singh, Mr. Rupendev Sharma
and Mr. Naresh Chander, Advocates
for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Mago, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
CHALLENGE IN THE PRESENT PETITION:
1. This is a civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India read with Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 for issuance of a writ, order or direction setting aside the notification
issued under Section 4 dated 08.03.1989, notification under Section 6 dated
07.03.1990 and award dated 05.03.1992. Other prayers have also been made
in the present petition.
2. Short reply by way of affidavit on behalf of respondents No.1
and 2 has been filed in Court, which is taken on record. Copy has already
been supplied to the counsel for the petitioner, who wishes to address
arguments.
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.09.07 14:51
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CWP No.26876 of 2026 2
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the
present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the acquisition and as far
as the prayer with respect to the payment of compensation is concerned, the
petitioner be permitted to withdraw the present petition with respect to the
said relief, with liberty to institute appropriate proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
grandmother and father of the petitioner namely late Smt. Gyanwati Devi
and late Sh. Yogesh Chandra along with one Ravinder Kumar had jointly
purchased 6 kanals and 12 marlas of land comprised in Khewat No. 65
Khata no. 69 Rectangle (Mustil) No. 2, specifically Kila No. 2//19: 7 Kanal
12 Marla (7-12), Kila No. 2//21/3: 4 Kanal 3 Marla (4-3) Kila No. 2//22: 8
Kanal 0 Marla (8-0) Village Kadipur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon vide
jamabandi for the year 1977-78. It is further submitted that the respondents-
State issued notification dated 08.03.1989 under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1894 Act’) to acquire the
land which included the abovesaid land for the purpose of development and
utilization of land for residential and commercial area Sectors 9, 9A and 10,
Gurgaon. It is submitted that the notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act
was issued on 07.03.1990 and thereafter, the award was passed on
05.03.1992 and that thereafter the land measuring 6 kanals 12 marlas was
inherited by the father of the petitioner and subsequently by the petitioner. It
is further submitted that the petitioner is till date in actual legal physical
possession of the property in question as per the jamabandi and khasra
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.09.07 14:51
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CWP No.26876 of 2026 3
girdawari. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not received the
compensation and thus, the acquisition has lapsed. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has specifically referred to the nakal jamabandi to show that in
column No.12, entries with respect to change of ownership have been made
to submit that the same shows that the land is not vested with the State
Government. It is, therefore, prayed that the present petition be allowed and
the acquisition proceedings qua the present petitioner be quashed.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has
submitted that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition after a delay
of 34 years from the date of the passing of the award and thus, the writ
petition deserves to be dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches. It
is further submitted that in the present case, the possession of the land in
question was taken vide Rapat Roznamcha No.306 dated 05.03.1992 and
thus, the land vested with the respondents-State. It is argued that the total
compensation amount awarded was 49,39,305/- qua the entire acquired ₹
land, which was duly tendered and was available for disbursement to the
persons interested, at the time of announcement of the award dated
05.03.1992 and out of the said amount of compensation, 27,86,373/- has
₹
already been disbursed to the respective landowners as per their respective
share and the remaining amount of 21,52,932/- has been submitted to the ₹
learned ADJ Court for disbursement. It is submitted that thus, the case is
squarely covered against the petitioner in view of the law laid down by the
Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indore Development
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.09.07 14:51
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CWP No.26876 of 2026 4
Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others reported as (2020) 8 SCC 129.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as learned counsel for the respondents and is of the opinion that the present
writ petition is meritless and deserves to be dismissed for the following
reasons.
7. It is not in dispute that the notification under Section 4 of the
1894 Act was issued on 08.03.1989 and the notification under Section 6 of
the 1894 Act was issued on 07.03.1990 and the award was passed on
05.03.1992. It is the case of the respondents that the possession of the land
has been taken vide Rapat Roznamcha No.306 dated 05.03.1992. The
petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the acquisition after a
delay of 34 years from the date of the passing of the award and thus, the writ
petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Desraj and
others Vs. State of Haryana and others reported as 2022(4) RCR (Civil) 298
had observed that in the cases in which challenge is made to the notifications
vide which land is sought to be acquired, the concept of negating the
challenge on account of the doctrine of delay and laches is well recognized.
It was observed that even in case there were procedural irregularities or the
status of the land at the time of initiation of the acquisition proceedings had
not been taken into consideration in a proper manner, at the time of rejecting
the objections filed under Section 5A of the 1894 Act, the landowner was
not entitled to raise such pleas after much delay, as such pleas have to be
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.09.07 14:51
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CWP No.26876 of 2026 5
raised at the first instance and immediately when the cause of action arises to
the landowner. It was further observed that in case the landowner chooses to
remain silent and allows the State to proceed, then, apart from the fact that
the case is to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, even the
doctrine of acquiescence would come into play, which is sufficient to take
away that right and any such plea is required to be rejected at the threshold.
It was also observed that such silence would be conclusive evidence of the
waiver of interest on the part of the litigant and that the doctrine of
acquiescence acts as an estoppel which bars the litigant from complaining
about the violation of his right. It was further observed that dead and stale
claims cannot be revived at a belated stage.
9. The coordinate Division Bench in the abovesaid judgment had
made the said observations after taking into consideration the well known
facet of law that whensoever there was conflict between public interest and
private interest, the private interest has to make way for the public interest.
The challenge thus made by the petitioners therein to the acquisition
proceedings was rejected by taking into consideration the delay in
challenging the same. Although in the said case it was the case of the
petitioners therein that there was construction on the land in question and the
said petitioners had even filed objections under Section 5A of the 1894 Act,
yet the coordinate Division Bench dismissed the case by observing that the
cause of action for seeking release of the constructed portion had arisen at
the time of the notification under Section 6 and not after a period of several
years and thus, in spite of the said two aspects being in favour of the
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.09.07 14:51
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CWP No.26876 of 2026 6
petitioners therein, they were not granted any relief. The Division Bench in
the abovesaid case also took into consideration the judgment of the
Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra) in which it had been observed that the dead
and stale claims cannot be revived.
10. The argument raised on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that
he is in actual physical possession of the premises in question, which as per
his version is legal possession, in spite of rapat roznamcha having been
executed by the respondent-authorities, and thus, the acquisition has lapsed,
is absolutely meritless.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority (supra) had observed that word 'or' used in Section 24(2) between
possession and compensation has to be read as 'nor' or as 'and' and the
deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under the said provision could
only be in a situation where the possession of land has not been taken nor
compensation has been paid and in other words, in case the possession has
been taken but the compensation has not been paid there would be no lapse
and similarly if compensation has been paid and possession has not been
taken then also there would be no lapse. It was further observed that the
landowners who had refused to accept compensation or sought reference for
higher compensation, then, they cannot claim that the acquisition
proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court had further specifically observed that the provision of
Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to a new cause of action
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.09.07 14:51
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CWP No.26876 of 2026 7
to question the legality of concluded proceedings and applies only to a
proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the Act of 2013, i.e.,
1.1.2014 and does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not
allow the landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession
to reopen proceedings. With respect to mode of taking possession under the
1894 Act, it was observed that drawing of panchnama i.e. inquest
report/rapat roznamcha was valid proof of taking possession in land
acquisition cases and subsequent to the same, the land would vest in the
State and any re-entry or retaining the possession thereafter was unlawful
and the person who continued in possession would be a trespasser. Para 363
of the said judgment is reproduced as under: -
“363. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
questions as under:
1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not
made as on 1.1.2014 the date of commencement of Act of 2013, there is
no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the
provisions of Act of 2013.
2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of
five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court,
then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of
the Act of 2013 under the Act of 1894 as if it has not been repealed.
3. The word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2) between possession and
compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’. The deemed lapse of
land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013
takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more
prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not
been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, 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
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.09.07 14:51
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CWP No.26876 of 2026 8
been taken then there is no lapse.
4. The expression 'paid' in the main part of Section 24(2) of the Act
of 2013 does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The
consequence of non-deposit is provided in proviso to Section 24(2) in
case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of land holdings
then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land
acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 shall be entitled to
compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. In
case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act of
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 Act of 2013 has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date
of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.
5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided
under Section 31(1) of the Act of 1894, 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). Land owners 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 Act of 2013.
6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is to be treated as
part of Section 24(2) not part of Section 24(1)(b).
7. The mode of taking possession under the Act of 1894 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 Act of 1894, the land vests in State there is no
divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, as once
possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).
8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of
proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.09.07 14:51
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CWP No.26876 of 2026 9
inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more
before the Act of 2013 came into force, in a proceeding for land
acquisition pending with concerned authority 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.
9. Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 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 Act of 2013, 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 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.
Let the matters be placed before appropriate Bench for
consideration on merits.”
12. It was also observed that when the State Government acquires
land and draws up a memorandum of taking possession, that amounts to
taking physical possession of the land and that on the property which is
acquired, the Government is not supposed to put some other person or the
police force in possession to retain it and start cultivating it till the land is
used by it for the purpose for which it has been acquired nor the Government
is supposed to start residing or to physically occupy it once possession has
been taken by drawing the inquest proceedings/rapat roznamcha.
13. With respect to interpretation of the word 'paid' used in Section
24(2) and 'deposited' used in the proviso to Section 24(2) detailed
observations were made and it was observed that the deposit in treasury in
place of deposit in court causes no prejudice to the landowner or any other
stakeholder as their interest is adequately safeguarded by the provisions
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.09.07 14:51
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CWP No.26876 of 2026 10
contained in Section 34 of the 1894 Act, which ensures higher rate of
interest than any other Government securities and the said money is safe and
can be made available for disbursement to the landowners. In para 228, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had even taken into consideration the standing Order
No.28 which was issued in 1909 by the State of Punjab, which provided five
modes of payment and it was further observed that the said rules and the
standing orders are binding on the concerned Authorities. Paras 228 and 230
of the said judgment is reproduced herein below: -
“228. Standing Order No.28 was issued in 1909 by the State of
Punjab and was applicable to Delhi also, which provided five modes of
payment in para 74 and 75 thus:
“74. Methods of making payments.—There are five methods of
making payments:
(1) By direct payments, see Para 75(I) infra
(2) By order on treasury, see Para 75(II) infra
(3) By money order, see Para 75(III) infra
(4) By cheque, see Para 75(IV) infra
(5) By deposit in a treasury, see Para 75(V) infra ..........
xxx xxx xxx xxx
230. Deposit in treasury in place of deposit in court causes no
prejudice to the landowner or any other stakeholder as their interest is
adequately safeguarded by the provisions contained in Section 34 of the Act
of 1894, as it ensures higher rate of interest than any other Government
securities. Their money is safe and credited in the earmarked quantified
amount and can be made available for disbursement to him/them. There is
no prejudice caused and every infraction of law would not vitiate the act.”
14. It is thus apparent that the entire law with respect to possession,
payment of compensation, vesting and non-revival of stale and time barred
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.09.07 14:51
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CWP No.26876 of 2026 11
claims had been crystallized in the above-said judgment. In the present case,
as has been detailed hereinabove, the respondents have met the said
parameters.
15. Thus, in the abovesaid circumstances, even in case the
petitioner is in actual physical possession of the premises, it cannot be said
that the possession of the petitioner is legal as it has specifically been held
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that after the execution of the rapat
roznamcha, in case the petitioner continues to be in possession, then, he is a
trespasser in the premises in question and no benefit of the same is to be
given to the petitioner. Mere change in the entries in column No.12 of the
jambandi would also not further the case of the petitioner in any manner in
view of the law laid down in the abovesaid judgment. The land stands vested
with the respondents-State after the passing of the award and by the
execution of the rapat roznamcha.
16. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, there is
no merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
17. It is, however, made clear that it would be open to the petitioner
to institute appropriate proceedings with respect to the claim of
compensation.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
rd
September 3 , 2026 (DIVYA SHARMA)
Puneet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.09.07 14:51
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh