Supreme Court of India
STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERSversusAALAMGIR & OTHERS
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 407
- Decided
- 18 March 2025
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as clarified in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal—where lapse occurs only if both possession and compensation are absent for five years before 1‑January‑2014 and the word ‘or’ must be read as ‘nor’/‘and’—overrules the earlier Pune Municipal Corporation decision, and consequently the High Court orders must be set aside and the matters remanded for reconsideration applying this ratio.
Summary
The State of Haryana appealed against several Punjab and Haryana High Court orders that had set aside land acquisition notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, following writ petitions by land owners and subsequent purchasers. The petitioners sought relief under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, challenging the validity of the acquisitions. The Supreme Court noted that the earlier decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki had been overruled by the five‑Judge Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, which clarified the meaning of “or” in Section 24(2) and the conditions for a deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings. Applying this precedent, the Court held that the High Court’s reliance on the Pune decision was misplaced, set aside its orders, and remanded the matters for fresh consideration applying the Indore Development Authority ratio. The Court also ordered the continuation of status‑quo orders, allowed parties to raise all contentions on the validity of the acquisition, and imposed costs to be deposited before the Supreme Court Mediation Centre.
Issues considered
- The correct interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, particularly the meaning of ‘or’ between possession and compensation and the circumstances that trigger a deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings.
- Whether the Supreme Court decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki remains good law or is overruled by Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal.
- The propriety of the High Court's orders granting relief to land owners based on the Pune decision.
- Whether the appeals should be decided on merits or remanded for fresh consideration applying the Indore Development Authority judgment.
- The continuance of status‑quo orders pending remand.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 16, s. 31, s. 34, s. 4, s. 6
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013s. 24(1)(a), s. 24(1)(b), s. 24(2)
Headnote
Issue for Consideration The present appeals assail the orders passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in several writ petitions in respect of acquisition of various parcels of land from time to time by issuance of notifications u/ss.4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Headnotes† – ss.4 and 6 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – The respondents land owners/subsequent purchasers have assailed the acquisition process – The validity of the acquisition were
Subjects
Land acquisitionAcquisition processValidity of the acquisitionSection 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Land ownersSubsequent purchasersOrder of status quoSubsequent development in respect of land acquiredDeath of land ownersFresh noticesRemanding of matters to High CourtAdvantage of the concessionsConsent ordersIndore Development Authority case
Judgment
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1460 : 2025 INSC 407
State of Haryana & Others
v.
Aalamgir & Others
(Civil Appeal No. 4052 of 2025)
18 March 2025
[B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The present appeals assail the orders passed by the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in several writ petitions in respect of
acquisition of various parcels of land from time to time by issuance
of notifications u/ss.4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Headnotes†
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4 and 6 – Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – The
respondents land owners/subsequent purchasers have
assailed the acquisition process – The validity of the
acquisition were raised in the various writ petitions filed by
them – However, pursuant to the enforcement of 2013 Act, fresh
writ petitions were filed seeking relief under sub-section (2)
of s.24 of the 2013 Act – In some of the impugned judgments,
the High Court has followed the earlier judgment of this
Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and has granted relief
to the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers –
Correctness:
Held: 1. In the instant case, if these appeals have to be considered
on merits then the judgment passed by the five-Judge Bench of
this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority would have
to be applied to the facts of each case – In the circumstances, this
Court finds it just and proper to set aside the impugned orders and
remand these matters to the High Court for reconsideration of the
Writ Petitions filed by the respondents land owners/subsequent
purchasers and to dispose of those Writ Petitions on the basis of
the recent judgment of this Court in Indore Development Authority
by applying the ratio and the observations of the said judgment
to the facts of each case as they emanate in each of the cases.
[Paras 7, 9]
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1461
State of Haryana & Others v. Aalamgir & Others
2. Since this Court is remanding the matters to the High Court, the
order of status quo which were prevailing in those cases may be
continued till the disposal of the writ petitions by the High Court.
[Para 11]
3. Further, liberty reserved to the respondents-land owners/
subsequent purchasers to raise all available contentions with regard
to the validity of the acquisition which have been undertaken under
the LA Act of 1894 before the High Court. [Para 14]
4. Considering the long lapse of time between the quashing of the
acquisition or a declaration that they have lapsed and the matters
now being remanded to the High court for reconsideration and
there being subsequent developments with regard to the subject
land in question, liberty may be reserved to the respondents-land
owners/subsequent purchasers to raise all contentions on the basis
of equity and in accordance with law. [Para 16]
5. In certain cases there may be death of the respondents-land
owners/subsequent purchasers and there has been no application
filed for substitution of the deceased before this Court – The High
Court directed to issue fresh notices to the respondents-land
owners/subsequent purchasers if they have not appeared before
the High Court in those cases. [Para 17]
6. If the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers wish
to take advantage of the concessions or the consent orders
made by the High Court on the basis of the concessions made
by the State, the same shall be considered having regard to the
respective contentions advanced at the Bar and in accordance
with law. [Para 19]
Case Law Cited
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal [2020] 3 SCR 1 :
(2020) 8 SCC 129 – followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki [2014]
1 SCR 783 : (2014) 3 SCC 183 – referred to.
List of Acts
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013.
1462 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Land acquisition; Acquisition process; Validity of the acquisition;
Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Land
owners; Subsequent purchasers; Order of status quo; Subsequent
development in respect of land acquired; Death of land owners;
Fresh Notices; Remanding of matters to High Court; Advantage of the
concessions; Consent orders; Indore Development Authority case.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4052 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2017 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 5105 of 2017
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 401-403 and 2220 of 2024, Civil Appeal No(s).
4053, 4054, 4055, 4056, 4057, 4058, 4059, 4060, 4061, 4062, 4063,
4064, 4065-4067, 4068-4069, 4070, 4071, 4072, 4073, 4074-4077,
4078-4079, 4080, 4081, 4082, 4083, 4084, 4085, 4086, 4087,
4088, 4089, 4090, 4091, 4092, 4093, 4094, 4095-4104, 4105,
4106, 4107, 4108, 4109, 4110, 4111, 4112, 4113, 4114, 4115, 4116,
4117-4121, 4122, 4123, 4124, 4125, 4126-4130, 4131, 4132, 4133,
4134, 4135, 4136, 4137, 4138, 4139, 4140, 4141, 4142, 4143,
4144, 4145, 4146, 4147, 4148, 4149, 4150-4153, 4154, 4155,
4156, 4157, 4158, 4159, 4160, 4161, 4162, 4163, 4164-4170,
4171, 4172, 4173, 4174, 4175, 4176, 4177, 4178, 4179, 4180,
4181, 4182, 4183, 4184, 4185, 4186, 4187, 4188, 4189, 4190,
4191, 4192, 4193, 4194, 4195, 4196, 4197, 4198, 4199, 4200,
4201, 4202, 4203, 4204, 4205, 4206, 4208, 4209, 4210, 4211,
4212, 4213, 4214, 4215, 4216, 4217, 4218, 4219, 4220, 4221,
4222, 4223, 4224, 4225, 4226, 4227, 4228, 4229, 4230, 4231,
4232, 4233, 4234, 4235, 4236, 4237-4240, 4241, 4242, 4243,
4244, 4245, 4246, 4247, 4248, 4249, 4250, 4251, 4252, 4253,
4254, 4255, 4256, 4257, 4258, 4259, 4260, 4261, 4262, 4263,
4264, 4265, 4266, 4267, 4268 and 4269 of 2025.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Lokesh Sinhal, Alok Sangwan,
Sr. A.A.G., B.K. Satija, Birendra Kumar Choudhary, A.A.G., Shekhar
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1463
State of Haryana & Others v. Aalamgir & Others
Raj Sharma, D.A.G., Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv., Parveen Kumar,
Raj Kishor Choudhary, Shakeel Ahmed, Ms. Pratibha Singh,
Vikram Patralekh, Shree Pal Singh, Vishwa Pal Singh, Dr. Nirmal
Chopra, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Kanu
Agrawal, Bhuvan Kapoor, Varun Chugh, Krishna Kant Dubey,
Shubham Bhalla, Akshay Amritanshu, Ms. Drishti Saraf, Ms. Pragya
Upadhyay, Nikunj Gupta, Ms. Aakanksha, Gurmeet Singh Makker,
Sumit Kumar Sharma, Samar Vijay Singh, Rajat Sangwan, Ms.
Nidhi Narwal, Ms. Sabarni Som, Annirudh Sharma, Aman Dev
Sharma, Shikhar Narwal, Fateh Singh, Aniruddha Deshmukh.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Vangala Eswaraiah, Narender Hooda,
Aashish Chopra, Deepak Nargolkar, Ms. Kaadambari Singh,
Nidhesh Gupta, Ashish Aggarwal, Rameshwar Singh Malik, Manoj
Swarup, Parthiv K. Goswami, Arunabh Chowdhury, Rajive Bhalla,
Siddharth Yadav, Gagan Gupta, Manoj Swarup, Rishi Malhotra, S.K.
Gangele, U.K. Uniyal, D Sheshadri Naidu, Mahabir Singh, Aakash
Dahiya, Maninder Singh, Arunabh Chowdhury, Rajul Bhargava, Ms.
Pinaki Misra, Dushyant Dave, Manoj Swarup, Sr. Advs., Sunny
Kadiyan, Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Azmat Hayat Amanullah, Nitin
Kaushal, Ms. Rebecca Mishra, Vishal Sinha, Ms. Aditi Gupta, Ms.
Meera Kaura, Tejas Patel, Ritika Saini, Puru Pratap Singh, Ms.
Manika Pandey, Ms. Zainab Hussain, Mehul Garg, Pawan Aneja,
Praveen, Shiv Bhatnagar, Mrs. Pallvi Hooda, Yuvraj Nandal, Ms.
Tannu, Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, Ms.
Amita Singh Kalkal, Ms. Aditi Gupta, Rohit Chaudhary, Shreeji
Bhavsar, Siddharth Mittal, Abhijeet Varshney, Darshan Sejwal,
Deepak Agarwal, Sumit Kumar Sharma, Mrs. Shilpa G Mittal, Ms.
Rupa Pathania, Somiran Sharma, Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Lokesh
Baimad, Mattegunta Ramkrishna, Narender Kumar Verma, Shish
Pal Laler, Hitesh Kumar, Hardik Giri, Atul, Pranav Singh Gautam,
Ms. Kadambini, Ravi Panwar, Abhimanyu Tewari, Ms. Eliza Bar,
Sidhant Awasthy, Siddhant Saroha, Soayib Qureshi, Sachin Jain,
Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Vishal, Mrs. Subhadra Dwivedi, Aman Raj
Gandhi, Rajnish Kumar Jha, Harsh Kinra, Apoorva Kinra, Dinesh
Verma, Subhasish Bhowmick, Imran Khan, Inam-ul-haq, Anil K.
Chopra, M/s V. Maheshwari & Co., Ronak Karanpuria, S. Senthil
Elangovan, S. Krishnamoorthy, K. Kumaravadivel, C Dinakaran,
Gurrick Jassar, Pranshu Dahiya, Yogesh Kumar Dahiya, Kripa
Shankar Prasad, Sukant Vikram, Ashish Manral, Ms. Muskaan
Chawla, Ms. Tanya Singh Kaurav, Mohd. Faisal, M/s Veritas
1464 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Legis, Ananga Bhattacharyya, Ms. Devahuti Tamuli, Krishanu
Barua, Aabhas Kshetarpal, Dhiliban Varadarajan, Harsh N Dudhe,
Siddhartha Jha, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva,
Rohit Lochav, Sarthak Chiller, Kapil Kumar, Somvir Singh Deswal,
Abhishek Deswal, Roshneel Singh, Bhupendra Dalal, Manoj Kumar,
Kuldeep Singh Bhakar, Nischal Kumar Neeraj, Wills Mathews,
Dhanesh M. Nair, Paul John Edison, Ms. Anila Tharakan Thomas,
Rakesh Garg, Ashish Gopal Garg, Ms. Shweta Garg, Ms. Japneet
Kaur, Madhav Gupta, Bikram Dwivedi, Manu Bhardwaj, G. Balaji,
Vedant Singh, Vishisht Singh, Navneet Singh, Sandeep Bhiduri,
Ankur Bansal, Sadre Alam, Kumar Gaurav, Davesh Bhatia, Jitesh
Malik, Ms. Anisha Dahiya, Jatin Hooda, B.C. Bhatt, N D Kaushik,
Satish Kumar, Vikas Verma, Mrs. Sapna Verma, Shafik Ahmed,
Anamay Mishra, Aakriti Yunas, Padmanav Choudhury, Bhagwat
Dayal, M/s Karanjawala & Co., Jawahar Chawla, Amit Chawla, Ms.
Shelly Chawla, Ms. Zehra Khan, Ms. Delphina Shinglai, Siddharth
Bambha, Shyam D. Nandan, Ms. Nandna Manon, Pankaj Yadav,
Prateek Yadav, Ms. Diksha Rai, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Ms. Nina
Nariman, Ms. Atiga Singh, Piyush Vyas, Piyush Vyash, Ms. Purvat
Wali, Mrs. Purvat Wali, Ms. Apurva Sachdev, Ms. Shalu Sharma,
Parveen Kumar, Krishan Kumar, Seemant K. Garg, Nitin Pal, Karan
Kapoor, Yajur Bhalla, Manik Kapoor, Ms. Srishti Singla, Shubham
Bhalla, Akansha Gulati, Ms. Ragini Sharma, Ms. Gauri Bedi, Alex
Noel Dass, Ms. Aadya Kapoor, Divyansh Mishra, Rohit Pandey,
Shantwanu Singh, Mrs. Pragya Singh, Akshay Singh, Rahul Dubey,
Sunny Singh, B.S. Chadhry, Amit Kumar Chawla, Varun Varma,
Ms. Niharika Dewivedi, Ms. Monika, Amitabh Pandey, Ravindra
Bana, Siddharth Batra, Chinmay Dubey, Ms. Shivani Chawla, Ms.
Archna Yadav, Parth Poonia, Rhythm Katyal, Gaurav Jain, Ms. Abha
Jain, Mohit Kumar Daraad, Ms. Manya Kaushik, Satyen Srivastva,
Shubham Kashyap, Gurmehar Vaan Singh, Daya Krishan Sharma,
Rohit Vats, Yashdeep, Ankit Bhanot, Amir Yadav, Vineet Kumar
Yadav, Mayank Aggarwal, Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal, Saurabh Gupta,
Ananta Prasad Mishra, Ankit Swarup, Neelmani Pant, Hamd Tariq,
Hamad Tariq, Yash Singhal, M/s Delhi Law Chambers, Rajiv Kataria,
Ms. Debjani Das Purkayastha, Mrs. Sunita Punia, Prem Malhotra,
Ms. Ansuiya, Shivaansh Maini, Ms. Divya Jyoti Singh, Ms. Vanshaja
Shukla, Parmanand Yadav, Ms. Ankeeta Appanna, Ritesh Agrawal,
Sunder Khatri, Ms. Priyanshi Sharma, Dhiraj Abraham Philip, Balraj
Rathee, Febin Mathew Varghese, Naveen Richard, Ms. Achalika
Ahuja, Ms. Priya Sharma, Kailash Chand Mudgal, Nandlal Kumar
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1465
State of Haryana & Others v. Aalamgir & Others
Mishra, Pawan Kumar, Ms. Nitipriya Kar, Tanuj Dixit, Dr. Sushil
Balwada, Abhishek Garg, D.K. Garg, Dhananjay Garg, Gaurav
Saini, Ms. Anubha Agrawal, Himanshu Jain, Somanatha Padhan,
A.V.S. Raju, Akash Kakade, M/s. Krishna & Nishani Law Chambers,
Anil C Nishani, Mrs. Divya Narayan, Krishna M. Singh, Vishwesh
R. Murnal, Bharat Bhushan, Keshav Bansal, Karan Kapoor, Manik
Kapoor, Ms. Srishti Singla, Shrey Kapoor, Rahul Narang, Jawahar
Narang, Shreay Saini, Somesh Chandra Jha, Rakesh Dahiya,
Praveen Kumar, Dr. Sukhdev Sharma, Karan Kapoor, O.P.Sehrawat,
Manik Kapoor, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Mukesh Sharma, Raghav
Awasthi, Dinesh Sharma, Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Dr. B.R.Saini, Mrs.
Revathy Raghavan, Ketan Paul, Shish Pal Laler, Hitesh Kumar, Atul,
Hardik Giri, Pranav Singh Gautam, Ms. Kadambini, Varun Tokas, R.
C. Kaushik, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Jatin Vats, Naveen Kumar,
Dr. Nirmal Chopra, Pardeep Dahiya, Deepak Goel, Ms. Mahima
Benipuri, Aditya Goyal, Mrs. Archana Preeti Gupta, Aman Jha, Rishi
Tutu, Raman Yadav, Kshitij Mayank, Vikram Nagpal, R. C. Kohli,
Ayush Shekhawat, Sanchar Anand, Devendra Singh, Shiv Kumar,
Aman Kumar Thakur, Abhishek Bhardwaj, Jasbir Singh Malik, Ms.
Niharika Singh, Ms. Rhythm Bharadwaj, Ms. Suman Sharma, Varun
Punia, Vikas Mehta, Ankit Vashisht, Divyanshu Kumar Srivastava,
Abhinay, Ms. Parul Khurana, Aditya Singh, Shubham Singh, Kamal
Kishor, Vaseem, Ankur Chawla, Rahul Pratap, Karan Gogna, Karan
Kumar Gogna, Akshay Sahani, Akshay Sahni, Aditya Soni, Ranbir
Singh Yadav, Prateek Yadav, Puran Mal Saini, Ms. Anzu K. Varkey,
Gurmeet Singh Makker, Rajesh P., Jinendra Jain, D. Kumanan,
Atul Kumar, Abhimanyu Sharma, Ms. Deepali, Amit Gupta, Rahul
Thukral, Tarun Gupta, Shiv Charan Garg, Imran Khan, Parminder
Singh Bhullar, Chritarth Palli, Praveen Bahadur, Ms. Ruby Singh
Ahuja, Ms. Akanksha Thapa, Ms. Kritika Sachdeva, Jappanpreet,
Uzma Sheikh, Saurabh, M/s Karanjawala & Co., Ms. Shraddha
Deshmukh, Utkarsh Kokcha, Sanchit Singh, Ashutosh Ghade, Ms.
Sneha Balapure, Shiv Charan Garg, Imran Khan, Ms. Jahanvi Garg,
Sumit Kansal, Vikas Verma, Mrs. Sapna Verma, Shafik Ahmed, Ms.
Sapna Verma, Anamay Mishra, Ms. Aakriti Yunas, Aakriti Yunas,
Padmanav Choudhury, Bhagwat Dayal, Bharat Bhushan, Keshav
Bansal, Sabarish Subramanian.
Petitioner-in-person.
Respondent-in-person.
Caveator-in-person.
1466 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
Applications seeking condonation of delay in filing applications for
setting-aside abatement in the case of deceased respondents/parties
are allowed. Abatement is set-aside. Consequently, the applications
seeking substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased
respondents/parties are allowed.
1.1 Amended memos of parties shall be filed either by the learned
counsel for the appellant-State or by the learned counsel who
are appearing for the respondents.
1.2 The applications for condonation of delay in filing the Special
Leave Petitions have been filed by the State of Haryana and
other parties.
1.3 Learned counsel for the State submitted that in certain cases,
delay in filing the Special Leave Petitions has been condoned
subject to payment of costs in the range of Rs.10,000/- etc.
In certain other cases, the delay has been condoned without
imposition of any costs as such.
1.4 In some of these cases, the applications have been allowed
and the delay has been condoned subject to payment of costs
in certain cases. The details of the said cases are given in a
tabular form as under:
Sr. Item Case No. Delay in
No. No. Filing the
SLP(s)
(In Days)
01 28 SLP(C) No.32689/2018 257
02 28.3 SLP(C) No.16448/2018 156
03 28.4 SLP(C) No.22215/2018 176
04 28.5 SLP(C) No.16462/2018 156
05 28.7 SLP(C) No.26841/2018 189
06 28.11 SLP(C) No.22213/2018 218
07 28.12 SLP(C) No.22221/2018 213
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1467
State of Haryana & Others v. Aalamgir & Others
Sr. Item Case No. Delay in
No. No. Filing the
SLP(s)
(In Days)
08 28.14 SLP(C) Nos.22216- 198
22217/2018
09 28.17 SLP(C) No.16454/2018 220
10 28.18 SLP(C) No.16440/2018 204
11 28.19 SLP(C) Nos.16294- 214
16297/2024
12 28.20 SLP(C) Nos.22218- 233
22219/2018
13 28.21 SLP(C) No.16281/2024 237
14 28.22 SLP(C) No.16284/2024 237
15 28.23 SLP(C) No.16283/2024 237
16 28.24 SLP(C) No.16293/2024 286
17 28.25 SLP(C) No.16282/2024 224
18 28.26 SLP(C) No.16321/2024 145
19 28.27 SLP(C) No.16291/2024 248
20 28.28 SLP(C) No.16288/2024 248
21 28.30 SLP(C) No.16316/2024 252
22 28.31 SLP(C) No.26842/2018 252
23 28.32 SLP(C) No.16315/2024 254
24 28.34 SLP(C) No.16313/2024 254
25 28.35 SLP(C) No.16314/2024 254
26 28.36 SLP(C) Nos.16303- 269
16312/2024
27 28.37 SLP(C) No.16275/2024 273
28 28.38 SLP(C) No.16280/2024 267
29 28.39 SLP(C) No.16298/2024 267
30 28.40 SLP(C) No.16456/2018 267
31 28.41 SLP(C) No.16279/2024 267
32 28.42 SLP(C) No.16277/2024 267
1468 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Sr. Item Case No. Delay in
No. No. Filing the
SLP(s)
(In Days)
33 28.43 SLP(C) No.16437/2018 267
34 28.44 SLP(C) No.16276/2024 267
35 28.45 SLP(C) No.16302/2024 267
36 28.46 SLP(C) No.16292/2024 245
37 28.47 SLP(C) No.16301/2024 245
38 28.48 SLP(C) No.16299/2024 245
39 28.49 SLP(C) Nos.16266- 246
16270/2024
40 28.50 SLP(C) No.16445/2018 284
41 28.53 SLP(C) No.26833/2024 276
42 28.54 SLP(C) Nos.26835- 281
26839/2024
43 28.61 SLP(C) No.16435/2018 459
44 28.62 SLP(C) No.16453/2018 440
45 28.63 SLP(C) No.16464/2018 406
46 28.64 SLP(C) No.16442/2018 489
47 28.65 SLP(C) No.16443/2018 406
48 28.66 SLP(C) No. 16449/2018 406
49 28.67 SLP(C) No. 16436/2018 407
50 28.68 SLP(C) No. 16441/2018 398
51 28.69 SLP(C) No. 16459/2018 492
52 28.70 SLP(C) No. 16451/2018 462
53 28.71 SLP(C) No. 19843/2018 465
54 28.77 SLP(C) No. 9787/2019 390
55 28.78 SLP(C) No. 9788/2019 341
56 28.79 SLP(C) No. 9789/2019 341
57 28.80 SLP(C) No. 5437/2020 848
58 28.81 SLP(C) No. 29106/2019 949
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1469
State of Haryana & Others v. Aalamgir & Others
Sr. Item Case No. Delay in
No. No. Filing the
SLP(s)
(In Days)
59 28.83 SLP(C) No. 5550/2018 112
60 28.84 SLP(C) No. 24250/2018 195
61 28.85 SLP(C) No. 26833- 188
26839/2018
62 28.86 SLP(C) No. 7997/2019 110
63 28.87 SLP(C) No. 7999/2019 114
64 28.88 SLP(C) No. 31944/2018 556
65 28.89 SLP(C) No. 31946/2018 559
66 28.90 SLP(C) No. 8003/2019 715
67 28.92 SLP(C) No. 10236/2019 390
68 28.93 SLP(C) No. 9790/2019 341
69 28.94 SLP(C) No. 9791/2019 341
70 28.95 SLP(C) No. 10228/2019 390
71 28.96 SLP(C) No. 14950/2019 404
72 28.97 SLP(C) No. 10808/2019 337
73 28.98 SLP(C) No. 16733/2024 349
74 28.122 SLP(C) No. 24835/2019 447
75 28.125 SLP(C) No. 2454/2020 526
76 28.126 SLP(C) No. 2554/2020 527
77 28.127 SLP(C) No. 29104/2019 588
78 28.128 SLP(C) No. 29107/2019 582
79 28.129 SLP(C) No. 29108/2019 946
80 28.133 SLP(C) No. 30217/2019 596
81 28.134 SLP(C) No. 30218/2019 556
82 28.136 SLP(C) No. 6582/2020 692
83 28.157 C.A. No. 401-403/2024 188
84 28.158 SLP(C) No. 19325- 211, 225, 226
19328/2019
1470 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Sr. Item Case No. Delay in
No. No. Filing the
SLP(s)
(In Days)
85 28.159 SLP(C) No. 21895/2018 249
86 28.161 SLP(C) No. 10198/2019 26
87 28.162 SLP(C) No. 7993/2019 111
88 28.163 C.A. No. 2220/2024 494
89 28.164 SLP(C) No. 32691/2018 257
90 28.165 SLP(C) No. 1541/2019 281
91 28.166 SLP(C) No. 4232/2019 617
92 28.167 SLP(C) No. 2991/2019 316
93 28.168 SLP(C) No. 4228/2019 316
94 28.169 SLP(C) No. 5257/2019 360
95 28.171 SLP(C) No. 8002/2019 715
96 28.173 SLP(C) No. 9556/2019 390
97 28.174 SLP(C) No. 10227/2019 390
98 28.175 SLP(C) No. 9786/2019 341
99 28.176 SLP(C) No. 10231/2019 408
100 28.177 SLP(C) No. 10807/2019 322
101 28.178 SLP(C) No. 10993/2019 333
102 28.179 SLP(C) No. 11859/2019 333
103 28.182 SLP(C) No. 14271/2020 519
104 28.184 SLP(C) No. 28204/2019 513
105 28.185 SLP(C) No. 6563/2020 772
1.5 The extent of delay in all these above cases is also noted by
us. In the following cases there is no delay in filing the Special
Leave Petitions:
Sr. No. Item No. Item No.
1. 28.1 SLP(C) No.9553/2017
2. 28.2 SLP(C) No.9553/2017
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1471
State of Haryana & Others v. Aalamgir & Others
1.6 Having regard to the nature of the order which we propose to
pass in these cases, we condone the delay in those Special
Leave Petitions where applications are pending for condonation
of delay. Consequently, in these cases where delay has not
yet been condoned, the applications are allowed and the delay
in filing the Special Leave Petitions is condoned, subject to
payment of costs which is determined as follows:
S. No. Delay in Filing Costs Imposed
the SLPs per SLP (In Rs.)
01. Upto 200 Days Rs.5,000/-
02. 201 – 500 Days Rs.10,000/-
03. 501 – 1000 Days Rs.20,000/-
04. 1001 – 1500 Days Rs.30,000/-
05. 1501 - 2500 Days Rs.40,000/-
06. 2501 - 3000 Days Rs.50,000/-
1.7 In view of the above determination, the costs are ordered to
be imposed in the following matters where delay has not been
condoned:
Sr. Item Case No(s). Delay In Costs
No. No. Filing the Imposed
SLP(s) per SLP
(In Days)
01 28.6 Diary No.28518 of 2017 190 Rs.5,000/-
02 28.8 Diary No.28697 of 2017 186 Rs.5,000/-
03 28.9 Diary No.28698 of 2017 187 Rs.5,000/-
04 28.10 Diary No.30627 of 2017 192 Rs.5,000/-
05 28.13 Diary No.32100 of 2017 220 Rs.10,000/-
06 28.15 Diary No.32119 of 2017 180 Rs.5,000/-
07 28.16 Diary No.32369 of 2017 223 Rs.10,000/-
08 28.29 Diary No.37830 of 2017 253 Rs.10,000/-
09 28.33 Diary No.37948 of 2017 251 Rs.10,000/-
10 28.51 Diary No.30 of 2018 310 Rs.10,000/-
11 28.52 Diary No.39 of 2018 298 Rs.10,000/-
12 28.55 Diary No.2691 of 2018 327 Rs.10,000/-
1472 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Sr. Item Case No(s). Delay In Costs
No. No. Filing the Imposed
SLP(s) per SLP
(In Days)
13 28.56 Diary No.3661 of 2018 295 Rs.10,000/-
14 28.57 Diary No.5317 of 2018 310 Rs.10,000/-
15 28.58 Diary No.5319 of 2018 310 Rs.10,000/-
16 28.59 Diary No.5941 of 2018 313 Rs.10,000/-
17 28.60 Diary No.6950 of 2018 320 Rs.10,000/-
18 28.72 Diary No.23152 of 2018 480 Rs.10,000/-
19 28.73 Diary No.23156 of 2018 459 Rs.10,000/-
20 28.74 Diary No.23157 of 2018 478 Rs.10,000/-
21 28.75 Diary No.23161 of 2018 468 Rs.10,000/-
22 28.76 Diary No.8876 of 2019 737 Rs.20,000/-
23 28.82 Diary No.28377 of 2021 783 Rs.20,000/-
24 28.91 Diary No.8880 of 2019 723 Rs.20,000/-
25 28.99 Diary No.18345 of 2019 380 Rs.10,000/-
26 28.100 Diary No.18349 of 2019 471 Rs.10,000/-
27 28.101 Diary No.18352 of 2019 457 Rs.10,000/-
28 28.102 Diary No.18354 of 2019 440 Rs.10,000/-
29 28.103 Diary No.18355 of 2019 457 Rs.10,000/-
30 28.104 Diary No.18357 of 2019 428 Rs.10,000/-
31 28.105 Diary No.18359 of 2019 380 Rs.10,000/-
32 28.106 Diary No.18367 of 2019 428 Rs.10,000/-
33 28.107 Diary No.18369 of 2019 391 Rs.10,000/-
34 28.108 Diary No.18373 of 2019 440 Rs.10,000/-
35 28.109 Diary No.18908 of 2019 474 Rs.10,000/-
36 28.110 Diary No.18912 of 2019 443 Rs.10,000/-
37 28.111 Diary No.18928 of 2019 394 Rs.10,000/-
38 28.112 Diary No.18960 of 2019 446 Rs.10,000/-
39 28.113 Diary No.19565 of 2019 453 Rs.10,000/-
40 28.114 Diary No.19598 of 2019 453 Rs.10,000/-
41 28.115 Diary No.19751 of 2019 393 Rs.10,000/-
42 28.116 Diary No.19829 of 2019 394 Rs.10,000/-
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1473
State of Haryana & Others v. Aalamgir & Others
Sr. Item Case No(s). Delay In Costs
No. No. Filing the Imposed
SLP(s) per SLP
(In Days)
43 28.117 Diary No.20291 of 2019 449 Rs.10,000/-
44 28.118 Diary No.20292 of 2019 440 Rs.10,000/-
45 28.119 Diary No.20293 of 2019 455 Rs.10,000/-
46 28.120 Diary No.20296 of 2019 449 Rs.10,000/-
47 28.121 Diary No.20585 of 2019 444 Rs.10,000/-
48 28.123 Diary No.20755 of 2019 449 Rs.10,000/-
49 28.124 Diary No.24990 of 2019 609 Rs.20,000/-
50 28.130 Diary No.36905 of 2019 588 Rs.20,000/-
51 28.135 Diary No.151 of 2020 1045 Rs.30,000/-
52 28.137 Diary No.12898 of 2020 818 Rs.20,000/-
53 28.138 Diary No.25051 of 2020 1357 Rs.30,000/-
54 28.139 Diary No.1099 of 2021 1049 Rs.30,000/-
55 28.140 Diary No.27679 of 2021 776 Rs.20,000/-
56 28.142 Diary No.28405 of 2021 399 Rs.10,000/-
57 28.143 Diary No.29160 of 2021 783 Rs.20,000/-
58 28.145 Diary No.29614 of 2021 800 Rs.20,000/-
59 28.146 Diary No.31454 of 2021 809 Rs.20,000/-
60 28.147 Diary No.31463 of 2021 802 Rs.20,000/-
61 28.148 Diary No.31552 of 2021 761 Rs.20,000/-
62 28.149 Diary No.149 of 2022 1400 Rs.30,000/-
63 28.152 Diary No.22628 of 2022 836 Rs.20,000/-
64 28.153 Diary No.22632 of 2022 1237 Rs.30,000/-
65 28.154 Diary No.22636 of 2022 836 Rs.20,000/-
66 28.155 Diary No.18908 of 2023 2936 Rs.50,000/-
67 28.156 Diary No.19265 of 2023 2939 Rs.50,000/-
68 28.172 Diary No.8670 of 2019 722 Rs.20,000/-
69 28.180 Diary No.18364 of 2019 380 Rs.10,000/-
70 28.181 Diary No.18371 of 2019 391 Rs.10,000/-
71 28.183 Diary No.28351 of 2019 465 Rs.10,000/-
72 28.186 Diary No.24255 of 2020 1379 Rs.30,000/-
1474 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Sr. Item Case No(s). Delay In Costs
No. No. Filing the Imposed
SLP(s) per SLP
(In Days)
73 28.187 Diary No.28725 of 2020 1394 Rs.30,000/-
74 28.190 Diary No.18989 of 2023 2937 Rs.50,000/-
75 28.191 Diary No.20110 of 2023 2296 Rs.40,000/-
76 28.192 Diary No.60331 of 2024 753 Rs.20,000/-
The costs imposed shall be deposited with the Supreme Court
Mediation Centre on or before 05.05.2025.
2. Leave granted.
3. These appeals assail the orders passed by the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in several writ petitions in respect of acquisition of various
parcels of land from time to time by issuance of notifications under
Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “LA Act,
1894”). The respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers have
assailed the acquisition process. It may be that in certain cases the
contentions with regard to the validity of the acquisition were raised
in the Writ Petitions filed by them. However, the fact remains that
pursuant to the enforcement of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “2013 Act”), fresh Writ Petitions
were filed seeking relief under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the
2013 Act. In certain cases, amendments to the pending Writ Petitions
may have also been made while in certain other Writ Petitions while
assailing the process of acquisition under Sections 4 and 6 as well
as under other provisions of the 1894 Act, applications seeking relief
under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act have also been made. Various
contentions were also raised under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of
the 2013 Act before the High Court.
4. At this stage, it is necessary to note that this Court, in the case of
Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki,
(2014) 3 SCC 183 (“Pune Municipal Corporation”) had interpreted
sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act by granting relief
on the basis of the said interpretation. Thereafter, the matter was
considered by a five-Judge Bench of this Court which was the case
of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1475
State of Haryana & Others v. Aalamgir & Others
129 (“Indore Development Authority”), which set aside the earlier
judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation. Paragraphs
365 to 367 of the judgment in Indore Development Authority are
extracted as under:
“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal
Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal
Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 274] is
hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune
Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183 : (2014) 2 SCC
(Civ) 274] 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: (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 298] 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 [Indore Development
Authority v. Shailendra, (2018) 3 SCC 412 : (2018) 2
SCC (Civ) 426] , 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:
366.1. 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 the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of
proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under
the provisions of the 2013 Act.
366.2. 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 2013
Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.
366.3. 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
1476 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act 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 been taken then there is no lapse.
366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of
compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is
provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not
been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then
all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification
for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be
entitled to 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).
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1477
State of Haryana & Others v. Aalamgir & Others
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 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.
367. Let the matters be placed before appropriate Bench
for consideration on merits.”
5. It must be mentioned at this stage that in some of the impugned
judgments, the High Court has followed the earlier judgment of this
Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and has granted relief to the
respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers.
6. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the State of Haryana and others
have preferred these appeals.
7. We wish to observe that if, today, these appeals have to be considered
on merits then obviously the judgment passed by the five-Judge
Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
1478 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
would have to be applied to the facts of each case. It would call for
a determination of facts as stated in Paragraphs 366.3 and 366.4
of the said judgment as well as the other relevant paragraphs of
the said judgment.
8. The determination of the factual aspects in each of these cases
would inevitably call for the consideration of the original records and
hearing of the arguments by the respective parties on the factual
aspects of each of these cases.
9. In the circumstances, we find it just and proper to set aside the
impugned orders and remand these matters to the High Court
for reconsideration of the Writ Petitions filed by the respondents-
land owners/subsequent purchasers and to dispose of those Writ
Petitions on the basis of the recent judgment of this Court in Indore
Development Authority by applying the ratio and the observations
of the said judgment to the facts of each case as they emanate in
each of the cases.
10. At this stage, learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that during the pendency of the Writ Petitions
before the High Court and thereafter during the pendency of these
appeals before this Court the respondents had the benefit of orders
of status quo. Since this Court is remanding the matters to the High
Court, the said orders of status quo may be continued in those cases
where such orders prevail till the disposal of the writ petitions.
11. Learned Solicitor General appearing for the appellants very fairly
submitted that since this Court is remanding the matters to the
High Court, the order of status quo which were prevailing in those
cases may be continued till the disposal of the writ petitions by the
High Court.
12. In the circumstances, we find that the order of status quo prevailing
in the Writ Petitions preferred by the respondents herein ought to
continue till the disposal of the Writ Petitions by the High Court.
13. Learned senior counsel and learned counsel appearing for the
respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers further submitted
that there were certain contentions raised with regard to the validity
of the acquisition itself inasmuch as the process undertaken under
Sections 4 and 6 and other provisions of the LA Act 1894 were also
assailed apart from contentions being raised under sub-section (2) of
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1479
State of Haryana & Others v. Aalamgir & Others
Section 24 of the 2013 Act. That since the High Court has disposed
of the writ petitions and granted relief on the basis of the earlier
judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation, the validity
of the acquisition as such may not have been gone into, inasmuch
as only sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act may have been
applied and relief may have been granted to the parties. Therefore,
liberty may be reserved to the respondents to raise all available
contentions on the validity of the acquisition itself.
14. Take note of the said contention in such cases, we reserve liberty
to the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers to raise all
available contentions with regard to the validity of the acquisition
which have been undertaken under the LA Act of 1894 before the
High Court. It is needless to observe that those contentions would
be considered on their own merits de hors any contention raised
under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act.
15. It was further contended by learned senior counsel and learned
counsel for the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers
that between the period of the impugned orders of the High court
and today when the matters are being remanded to the High Court
for reconsideration there have been certain developments, there
may be third party rights created, there may be other developmental
activities which have taken place on the land sought to be acquired.
This is because there may have been quashing of the acquisition
notifications and/or orders being passed by holding that there was
lapse of acquisition under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013
Act and further on the basis of other contentions which were accepted
by the High Court and there may also have been release of those
lands to the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers as a
consequence.
16. Learned senior counsel and learned counsel for respondents-land
owners/subsequent purchasers contended that having regard to
the long lapse of time between the quashing of the acquisition or
a declaration that they have lapsed and the matters now being
remanded to the High court for reconsideration and there being
subsequent developments with regard to the subject land in question,
liberty may be reserved to the respondents-land owners/subsequent
purchasers to raise all contentions on the basis of equity and in
accordance with law. We find that such a request made is reasonable
1480 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and in the circumstances, we reserve liberty to the respondents-land
owners/subsequent purchasers to raise those contentions before
the High Court. Obviously appellant-State will have an opportunity
to also oppose those contentions in accordance with law.
17. It is further noted that in certain cases there may be death of the
respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers and there has been
no application filed for substitution of the deceased before this Court.
Since we are remanding the matters to the High Court, it is obvious
that the High Court will issue fresh notices to the respondents-land
owners/subsequent purchasers if they have not appeared before
the High Court in those cases and where there is demise of any
respondent, the legal heirs have to be impleaded having regard to the
applications that are to be filed wherever there are no applications
filed for impleadment of legal heirs of deceased respondents herein.
In respect of other cases where the parties are represented by their
respective counsel before this Court, we find that they ought to be
permitted to appear before the High Court on 05.05.2025 without
expecting any separate notices to be issued to them by the High
Court. However, if for any reason, there is non-appearance of the
respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers who are writ
petitioners before the High Court then fresh notices may also be
issued to the Writ Petitioners before the High Court either through
their counsel or directly to the said parties.
18. Learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the respondents-
land owners/subsequent purchasers submitted that in several cases
the State has made concessions before the High Court and there
may have also been consent orders made by the High Court based
on the concessions of the State. Since we are not interfering with
the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order(s) and are
remanding the matters to the High Court purely on the basis of the
recent judgment of this Court in Indore Development Authority,
we do not wish to make any observations on the said concessions
made on behalf of the State or any consent orders passed by the
High Court on the basis of the concessions made by the State.
19. It is needless to observe that if the respondents-land owners/
subsequent purchasers wish to take advantage of the concessions
or the consent orders made by the High Court on the basis of the
concessions made by the State, the same shall be considered having
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1481
State of Haryana & Others v. Aalamgir & Others
regard to the respective contentions advanced at the Bar and in
accordance with law.
20. All other contentions which are germane to the adjudication of the
Writ Petitions could be raised by both sides.
21. We place on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by
learned counsel, Mrs. Vanshaja Shukla and Ms. Diksha Rai Goswami
for the respondents-land owners and Mr. Akshay Amritanshu and
Mr. Samar Vijay Singh for the appellant-State as nodal counsel in
these appeals.
22. The costs imposed shall be deposited with the Supreme Court
Mediation Centre on or before 05.05.2025. In case the amounts of
costs are not deposited, the High Court shall not hear the appellants
herein until the filing of copies of the receipts/acknowledgement before
the Registry of this Court as well as the High Court and by serving
a copy of the same to the respondents’ counsel herein.
These appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
We reiterate that we have not made any observation on the merits
of the matters.
Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Land acquisition"Sign in to search