2142 OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No 6282/2023 @ Diary No 29328/2017)
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/c-a-no-001144-001146-2011/
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2139 OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.6278/2023 @ Diary No 29500/2017) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2155 OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No 6304/2023 @ Diary No 30171/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2156
OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil)
No 6305/2023 @ Diary No 30697/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2138
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/acquisition-of-land-and-deemed-lapse-under-the-act-2013/
OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.6276/2023 @ Diary No 29502/2017) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2143 OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No 6284/2023 @ Diary No 30833/2017) CIVIL APPEAL NO.
2141 OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil)
No 6280/2023 @ Diary No 33385/2017) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2157 OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No 6306/2023 @ Diary No.10677/2018) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2068 OF 2023 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2073 OF 2023 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2055 OF 2023 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2106 OF 2023 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2149 OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.6292/2023 @ Diary No 31499/2017) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2074 OF 2023 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2081 OF 2023 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
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 Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. 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 Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 in which the acquisition under the Act, 1894 was not under challenge. 2052/2023, 2108/2023, 2111/2023, 2097/2023, 2144/2023, 2146/2023, 2145/2023, 2129/2023, 2153/2023, 2062/2023, 2063/2023, 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, 2089/2023, 2092/2023, 2093/2023, 2087/2023, 2091/2023, 2109/2023, 2110/2023, 2054/2023, 2060/2023, 2074/2023, 206 All these appeals fall in other category, namely, in which the only 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 that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, solely relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra).
Manoharlal & Others Etc., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, in the writ petitions which were filed only for such relief and which were filed after the Act, 2013 came into force are concerned, the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court granting the relief under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is/are unsustainable.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/c-a-no-003481-003481-2022/
Even the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective original writ petitioners of CWP No 4015/2006 and other allied writ petitions – respondents in the civil appeals arising out of the impugned judgments 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 this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court granting relief 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 grounds challenging the acquisition/acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894 on merits, though were the subject matter of writ petitions and has disposed of the writ petitions only on the deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the matters are required to be remanded to the High Court to consider the writ petitions on other grounds, i.e., challenge to the acquisition/acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894 on merits.
However, the matters are remitted back to the High Court to decide and dispose of the main writ petitions afresh in accordance with law and on their own merits on other issues except the applicability of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question are deemed to have lapsed under section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 are hereby quashed and set aside.
Case Title: HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (HSIIDC) Vs. M/S. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (2023 INSC 353)
Case Number: C.A. No.-002052-002052 / 2023
