Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3069 (PNJ)

Ghasitu Ram v. State of Haryana

2016-10-27

SUDIP AHLUWALIA, SURYA KANT

body2016
JUDGMENT : Surya Kant, J. This common order shall dispose of the captioned writ petitions, as in all the cases, the question which falls for consideration is whether the acquisition of land shall be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 on the ground that neither the compensation amount was paid nor has been deposited in accordance with Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the Court before whom reference under Section 18 of that Act was maintainable. 2. Brief facts of each case are extracted for ready reference:- (1) CWP No. 11445 of 2008 3. The petitioners are residents of village Umri, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. They seek quashing of the notifications dated 11.11.2002 and 07.11.2003 issued under Section 4&6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as the Award dated 30.01.2008 announced under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground that the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is averred in para-2 of the writ petition that the petitioners have not received any compensation in lieu of their acquired land and its possession is also with them. 4. The Land Acquisition Collector has filed written statement dated 24.09.2008 and in para 2 thereof it is averred that in pursuance to the award dated 28.10.2005 the possession of the land was taken and handed over to HUDA except the land for which the orders of stay/status quo and stay dispossession have been passed by the Court. It is nowhere claimed that compensation has been paid to the petitioners or it stood deposited in accordance with Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act before 01.01.2014. (2) CWP No. 4791 of 2014 5. The petitioner is a resident of village Raipur, PO Fazilpur, Tehsil and District Sonepat. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking declaration that the acquisition carried out vide award dated 14.10.2004 qua his land as per the details mentioned in para 2 of the writ petition shall be deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking declaration that the acquisition carried out vide award dated 14.10.2004 qua his land as per the details mentioned in para 2 of the writ petition shall be deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is averred that neither the compensation was paid nor deposited in the Court till date. The physical possession of the land was also not taken from the petitioner. 6. No reply has been filed by the Land Acquisition Collector though the Chief Town Planner, Deptt. Of Town & Country Planning, Haryana has filed a short reply which is silent with regard to compensation and/or possession. (3) CWP-3330-2014 7. The petitioner-Company has laid challenge to the notifications dated 16.06.2006 and 15.06.2007 issued under Section 4&6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as the Award dated 22.02.2008 passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground that the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is averred in para-2 of the writ petition that the petitioners have not received any compensation in lieu of their acquired land and possession thereof has also not been taken from them. 8. It is averred in para 2 of the written statement dated 20.03.2015 that the possession of acquired land has already been delivered to HSIIDC vide rapat roznamcha No.304 dated 30.04.2008. As regard to compensation, it is stated that the petitioner-company did not approach to the office of District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Panipat to collect the cheque. (4) CWP No. 25824 of 2014 9. The petitioners have challenged the acquisition of their land measuring 9 kanal 17 marla vide Award dated 14.10.2004 passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground that the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, for the possession of the acquired land is with them and the compensation in lieu of their acquired land has not been deposited. 10. 10. Though no reply has been filed by the respondents, however, learned State counsel, on instructions, from the officials has acknowledged the fact that the petitioners have not received the compensation which is still lying with the Land Acquisition Collector. (5) CWP No.15571 of 2014 11. The petitioner who is a resident of village Raipur, Tehsil and District Sonepat, has challenged the acquisition of his land fully described in para 2 made vide Award dated 14.10.2004 passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground that the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In para-2 of the writ petition it is averred that physical possession of the land has not been taken by the respondents and the compensation amount has neither been deposited in the court nor paid to the petitioner. 12. The Land Acquisition Collector in para 2.1 of the written statement dated 17.04.2015 has averred that the possession of the land was handed over to Estate Office HUDA vide rapat No.235 dated 14.10.2004. It is stated in para 3.2 that the compensation has not been taken by the petitioners. It is further explained that the petitioners have not communicated regarding withholding their consent to receive the compensation so that the compensation amount could be deposited with the reference court. (6) CWP No.2616 of 2014 13. The petitioner is a resident of village Sersa, Tehsil and District Sonepat. He seeks quashing of the notifications dated 21.12.2005 and 29.12.2006 issued under Section 4&6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as the Award dated 05.07.2007 passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground that the acquisition proceedings qua his land comprising khasra No. 66/5/2 (2-12) and 67/1 (8-0) i.e. total measuring 10 kanal 12 marla are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In para-6 of the writ petition, it is averred that no compensation was paid, offered and tendered to the petitioner nor deposited in the Court. It is alleged that possession of the land was never taken from the petitioner. 14. Mr. YS Malik, Additional Chief Secretary to Govt. In para-6 of the writ petition, it is averred that no compensation was paid, offered and tendered to the petitioner nor deposited in the Court. It is alleged that possession of the land was never taken from the petitioner. 14. Mr. YS Malik, Additional Chief Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Industries and Commerce Department has acknowledged in para 3.7 of the written statement that the compensation has not been taken by the petitioner. It is further averred that the petitioner has not communicated regarding withholding his consent to receive the compensation so that the compensation amount could be deposited with the reference court. It is also stated that total acquired land of the petitioner was 38 kanal 8 marla, out of which he has already received compensation in respect of land measuring 27 kanal 16 marla and its possession was handed over to HSIIDC on 13.07.2007. As regard to the land measuring 10 kanal 12 marla, it is explained that the possession thereof could not taken due to stay order granted by this Court. No compensation has been admittedly received by the petitioner qua his land measuring 10 kanal 12 marla for which he seeks the declaration that the acquisition has lapsed. (7) CWP No.2638 of 2014 15. The petitioners are residents of village Sersa, Tehsil and District Sonepat. They seek quashing of the notifications dated 21.12.2005 and 29.12.2006 issued under Section 4&6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as the Award dated 05.07.2007 passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 qua their land measuring 3 kanal 5 marla comprising khasra No.66/10/3 situated in the revenue estate of their village, on the ground that the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In para-6 of the writ petition, it is averred that no compensation was paid, offered and tendered to the petitioners nor deposited in the Court. It is alleged that possession of the land was never taken from the petitioners. 16. The Additional Chief Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Industries and Commerce Department has in para 31 of the written statement averred that the total acquired land of the petitioners is 5 kanal 15 marla, out of which they have received compensation for the land measuring 2 kanal 10 marla. 16. The Additional Chief Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Industries and Commerce Department has in para 31 of the written statement averred that the total acquired land of the petitioners is 5 kanal 15 marla, out of which they have received compensation for the land measuring 2 kanal 10 marla. The possession of the said land has also been taken. As regard to the land in dispute measuring 3 kanal 5 marla, it is acknowledged in para 3.2 that there has been stay against dispossession since 28.05.2007. The petitioners have admittedly not lifted compensation for the said land measuring 3 kanal 5 marla in respect of which the instant writ petition has been filed. (8) CWP No.5156 of 2014 17. The petitioners are residents of village Raipur, PO Fazilpur, Tehsil and District Sonepat. They seek quashing of the notifications dated 20.10.2001 and 18.10.2002 issued under Section 4&6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as the Award dated 14.10.2004 passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground that the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is averred that neither the physical possession of the acquired land has been taken nor compensation deposited/paid in favour of the petitioners. 18. Though no reply has been filed by the respondents, however, learned State counsel, on instructions, from the officials has acknowledged the fact that the petitioners have not received the compensation which is still lying with the Land Acquisition Collector. (9) CWP No.4816 of 2014 19. The petitioners seek a declaration to the effect that acquisition of their land fully described in para 2 of the writ petition, which was part and parcel of the acquisition made by the State of Haryana vide award dated 05.09.2005, shall be deemed to have lapsed in terms of provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. As per the averments made in para 8 of the writ petition, the compensation amount is lying with the Land Acquisition Collector and the petitioners are still in actual physical cultivating possession of the land in question. 20. As per the averments made in para 8 of the writ petition, the compensation amount is lying with the Land Acquisition Collector and the petitioners are still in actual physical cultivating possession of the land in question. 20. Though no reply has been filed by the respondents, however, learned State counsel, on instructions, from the officials has acknowledged the fact that the petitioners have not received the compensation which is still lying with the Land Acquisition Collector. (10) CWP No.4410 of 2014 21. The petitioner impugns the notifications dated 20.10.2001 and 18.10.2002 issued under Section 4&6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as the award dated 05.09.2005 on the ground that the acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed in terms of provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act in view of the fact that physical possession of the acquired land has not been so far taken and compensation has also not been paid/deposited,. 22. Though no reply has been filed by the respondents, however, learned State counsel, on instructions, from the officials has acknowledged the fact that the petitioners have not received the compensation which is still lying with the Land Acquisition Collector. (11) CWP No.3943 of 2014 23. The petitioners are residents of village Sihi, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. They seek quashing of the notification dated 23.02.1973 and 03.05.1973 issued under Section 4&6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as the Award announced on 07.09.1993 on the ground that the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is averred that neither the possession of the petitioner has been disturbed as on date nor compensation in lieu of their acquired land has been paid to them or deposited as per law. 24. The Land Acquisition Collector has filed written statement dated 04.03.2015 stating that since the petitioners have not come forward to receive the compensation, the same has been sent to the Court of Additional District Judge, Faridabad on 21.07.2014. As regard to status of possession, it is explained that the physical possession of the awarded land has been handed over to Estate Officer, HUDA on 07.09.1993. 25. As regard to status of possession, it is explained that the physical possession of the awarded land has been handed over to Estate Officer, HUDA on 07.09.1993. 25. It may thus be noticed that compensation amount has been deposited in accordance with Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act only on 21.07.2014 i.e. after the new Act came into force on 01.01.2014. (12) CWP No.6538 of 2015 26. The petitioners seek a declaration to the effect that acquisition of their land described in para 5 of the writ petition, which was part and parcel of the acquisition made by the State of Haryana vide award dated 11.04.2002, shall be deemed to have lapsed in terms of provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, for neither the possession of the acquired unit/land of the petitioners was taken nor compensation has been paid to the petitioners. 27. Though no reply has been filed by the respondents, however, learned State counsel, on instructions, from the officials has acknowledged the fact that the petitioners have not received the compensation which is still lying with the Land Acquisition Collector. (13) CWP No.1887 of 2015 28. The petitioners are residents of village Molahera, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. They seek a declaration to the effect that acquisition of their land fully described in para 2 of the writ petition, which was part and parcel of the acquisition made by the State of Haryana vide award dated 08.12.2006, shall be deemed to have lapsed in terms of provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. As per the averments made in para 11 of the writ petition, the petitioners did not consent to receive the compensation in lieu of their acquired land and such amount of compensation was never deposited in accordance with Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act in a Court where they could file reference under Section 18 of that Act. 29. The Land Acquisition Collector has filed the reply in which it is nowhere averred that the compensation amount payable to the petitioners on their refusal to give consent to receive the same was deposited in the Court as per Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act. 30. Learned State counsel, on instructions, from the officials has acknowledged the fact that the petitioners have not received the compensation which is still lying with the Land Acquisition Collector. 31. 30. Learned State counsel, on instructions, from the officials has acknowledged the fact that the petitioners have not received the compensation which is still lying with the Land Acquisition Collector. 31. Similarly, the petitioners have averred in para 8 of the writ petition that they are still in physical possession of the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Collector refers to the delivery of ‘symbolic possession' in papers at the time of passing the award. There are no specific averments that physical possession of the acquired property was ever taken by preparing the panchnama duly attested by any independent witness. (14) CWP No.5453 of 2016 32. The petitioners are residents of village Dhand, Tehsil & District Kaithal. According to them, the acquisition of their land in pursuance to the Award announced under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 27.02.1986, have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 firstly on the ground that the possession of the acquired land has not been taken and secondly no compensation amount of the land has been paid to them. 33. The Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of Haryana, Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, has filed the written statement dated 19.08.2016 and in preliminary submission No.3, it is candidly acknowledged that the compensation amount was deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector vide Bank Drafts dated 16.12.1985 and 30.04.1986. Interestingly, office of Land Acquisition Collector has informed that their record has burnt and a DDR No. 66 of 2014 (R1/1) has been lodged. Had the Land Acquisition Collector further deposited the said amount in the reference court, it could easily be verified. The vague and evasive communication from the Land Acquisition Collector regarding burning of the record after the new Act came into force on 01.01.2014, fortifies the petitioners' claim that no compensation amount has been paid to them. The possession of the land is claimed to have been taken by the Land Acquisition Collector vide roznamcha dated 27.02.1986. It is further explained that the petitioners were duly informed to take the compensation but have not come forward. 15. CWP No.5520 of 2016 34. The possession of the land is claimed to have been taken by the Land Acquisition Collector vide roznamcha dated 27.02.1986. It is further explained that the petitioners were duly informed to take the compensation but have not come forward. 15. CWP No.5520 of 2016 34. The petitioner-company assails the notifications dated 17.11.2005 and 07.02.2006 issued under Section 4&6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as also the Award dated 02.03.2006 passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground that the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The plea taken is that since possession of the acquired land is with the petitioner and compensation amount has also not been paid, hence the acquisition proceedings stand lapsed. 35. In the short reply filed by the Additional Director, Urban Estate, Rohtak, it is explained in para 3.1 that petitioner's land measuring 28 kanal 7 marla was acquired and the possession of the awarded land has been handed over to Estate Officer, HUDA vide rapat dated 02.03.2006. It is admitted that the compensation amount has not been lifted by the petitioners. 16. CWP No.11782 of 2016 36. The petitioners who are residents of village Manoharpur, District Jind, assail the notifications dated 22.06.1979 and 23.03.1981 issued under Section 4&6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Award dated 03.05.1984 on the ground that the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in view of fact that the award amount has not been deposited in Court or in the account of the petitioners and that the petitioners are still in possession of the acquired land/property. 37. The written statement has been filed by the Executive Engineer, Jind Water Services Division, Jind stating that except one Ram Sarup s/o Jai Lal, no other land owner has come forward to receive the compensation. The averments made in the written statement are evasive as in para 4, it is stated that the possession of the land in question was taken by the department soon after announcing the award. The averments made in the written statement are evasive as in para 4, it is stated that the possession of the land in question was taken by the department soon after announcing the award. The details as to on which date the possession was taken and to whom the possession of the acquired land was handed over are missing. 17. CWP No.12150 of 2016 38. The challenge is laid to the notifications dated 17.04.2002 and 10.04.2003 issued under Section 4&6 as well as the Award dated 25.06.2004 announced under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide which land of the petitioners, as per the details mentioned in para 2 of the writ petition, was acquired. It is urged that since the petitioners are in continuous cultivating possession of the acquired land and no compensation has been paid/deposited in their favour, that the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In support of their plea that physical possession of the land continues with them, the petitioners have placed on record the revenue entries comprising jamabandi for the year 2005-06 (P1) and khasra girdawaris for different years including the latest one prepared on 02.05.2016. These revenue entries clearly suggest that even after the land was mutated in favour of HUDA, it is being cultivated and there have been standing crops during every year. The land has been shown to be cultivated by makbuja malkan, namely, the proprietors in possession. The photographs of the standing crops have also been appended to substantiate the claim. 39. The Land Acquisition Collector in his written statement dated 18.10.2016 has averred that out of 19 writ petitioners, except No. 4, 6, 9 & 12, all others have received the compensation. As regard to the physical possession of acquired land, the Land Acquisition Collector has averred that possession was handed over to the Estate Officer, HUDA on the date of award i.e. 25.06.2004 vide Rapat Roznamcha entries No.456, 484, 1318 in respect of three different villages. He further claims that possession of the land is thus taken to have ‘vested' in HUDA. 18. CWP No.12988 of 2016 and 19. CWP No.12994 of 2016 40. The petitioners are residents of village Lilwaspur, Tehsil and District Sonepat. He further claims that possession of the land is thus taken to have ‘vested' in HUDA. 18. CWP No.12988 of 2016 and 19. CWP No.12994 of 2016 40. The petitioners are residents of village Lilwaspur, Tehsil and District Sonepat. They seek quashing of the notifications dated 06.05.1982 and 02.05.1985 issued under Section 4&6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as also the Award dated 01.05.1987 announced under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground that the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is averred in para-2 of the writ petition that the petitioners have not received any compensation in lieu of their acquired land and its possession is still with them. 41. The Land Acquisition Collector in para 3 of the written statement dated 05.10.2016 has averred that the possession of land of the petitioner was handed over to Estate Office, HUDA on the same day when award was announced. However, the compensation amount has not been lifted by the landowners and the same is still in the account maintained by the Land Acquisition Collector. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION: 42. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and gone through the records with their assistance. 43. In the light of these partly admitted and partly disputed facts, the question that arises for determination is whether the impugned acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act? BRIEF REFERENCE TO RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF OLD AND NEW ACTS:- 44. 43. In the light of these partly admitted and partly disputed facts, the question that arises for determination is whether the impugned acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act? BRIEF REFERENCE TO RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF OLD AND NEW ACTS:- 44. Section 31 of 1894 Act obligates that on making an Award under Section 11 of the Act, the Collector shall tender payment of compensation to the persons entitled thereto as per the said Award and if such persons do not consent to receive the compensation amount or if there be no person to receive the same or there is any dispute with regard to the title of acquired property, the Collector shall deposit the amount of compensation "in the Court to which Reference under Section 18 of the Act would be submitted..." The old Act thus contemplated only two modes of payment of compensation amount, namely, where the affected land-owner agrees to receive it, the Collector shall make payment to him but if such land-owner does not agree to receive the compensation amount, the same was required to be deposited in the Court where Reference under Section 18 of the Act was maintainable. 45. The 1894 Act has since been repealed w.e.f. 01.01.2014 and stands substituted by 2013 Act, which has been brought into force with the object to introduce a humane, participative, informed and transparent process for land acquisition..... with an ultimate goal "for ensuring that the cumulative outcome of compulsory acquisition should be that affected persons become partners in development leading to an improvement in their post-acquisition social and economic status....." 46. Section 24 of 2013 Act deals with eventualities where land acquisition process initiated under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed. Its sub-section (1) says that notwithstanding anything contained in the new Act, the land acquisition proceedings initiated under 1894 Act where no Award under Section 11 of the said Act was made, shall be dealt with under the new Act so far as the same relates to determination of compensation but if the Award has been made under Section 11 of 1894 Act, in that event, such proceedings shall continue under the old Act on the premise that the said Act has not been repealed. 47. Its Sub-section (2) is an exception to sub-section (1) of Section 24 and it reads as follows: "...24. 47. Its Sub-section (2) is an exception to sub-section (1) of Section 24 and it reads as follows: "...24. Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases: (1) xx xx xx xx (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with this Act..." 48. The plain reading of sub-section (2) of Section 24 unveils that the acquisition made under the provisions of 1894 Act "shall be deemed to have lapsed" (i) where the Award under that Act was made five years or more before the commencement of the new Act but physical possession of the acquired land has not been taken; (ii) or no compensation has been paid for a period of five years before the New Act came into force. 49. There would thus be two categories of cases for the purpose of declaration to the effect that the acquisition shall be deemed to have lapsed, namely, (i) where the State or its agencies have not taken "physical possession" of the acquired property though the Award was passed five years or more prior to the commencement of new Act w.e.f. 01.01.2014 or (ii) the compensation amount has not been 'paid' to the expropriated owners or persons interested within such stipulated period. Both these expressions embedded in Section 24 (2) of 2013 Act have been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. 50. The first land-mark is Pune Municipal Corporation and another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others, (2014) 3 SCC 183 and it explains the expression "compensation has not been paid". Both these expressions embedded in Section 24 (2) of 2013 Act have been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. 50. The first land-mark is Pune Municipal Corporation and another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others, (2014) 3 SCC 183 and it explains the expression "compensation has not been paid". The word ‘Paid' has been interpreted "with reference to Section 31 of 1894 Act", to hold that "Section 31(1) enjoys upon the Collector, on making Award under Section 11, to tender payment of compensation to the persons interested/entitled thereto according to the Award or if there is any contingency illustrated in sub-section (2) thereof, then the Collector is required to deposit the compensation amount in the Court to which Reference under Section 18 of 1894 Act may be made.." There being no other mode of payment of compensation prescribed under Section 31 of 1894 Act, the deposit of compensation amount in the Government Treasury cannot be equivalent to the payment of compensation to the landowners/persons interested and thus the deposit in Government Treasury has been held to be of no avail in the context of applicability of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act. 51. In Union of India and others v. Shiv Raj and others, (2014) 6 SCC 564 , the compensation amount was deposited with the Revenue Department instead of the Court before whom Reference under Section 18 of 1894 Act was maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "deposit of the said amount may not be a deemed payment within the meaning of Section 31 of 1894 Act, hence the acquisition proceedings must be deemed to have lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act". 52. In Bimla Devi and others v. State of Haryana and another, (2014) 6 SCC 583 , the land was acquired vide Award dated 18.11.1995 but neither the compensation was 'paid' till 01.01.2014 nor the physical possession of acquired property was taken. The Apex Court invoked Section 24(2) of the New Act and declared that the acquisition shall be deemed to have lapsed. 53. The Apex Court invoked Section 24(2) of the New Act and declared that the acquisition shall be deemed to have lapsed. 53. In Sita Ram v. State of Haryana and another, (2015) 3 SCC 595, it was brought to the notice of Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 08.10.2003 whereas the compensation was deposited in the Court on 09.04.2014, i.e., after the commencement of the new Act and more than five years after the Award was passed. In view of the undisputed facts, the acquisition proceedings were declared to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act. To the same effect are the decisions in (i) Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others v. Jagjit Singh and others, (2015) 8 SCC 544 ; (ii) Rattan Singh v. Union of India and another, 2015 SCC Online SC 1287 and; (iii) Vijay Latka and another v. State of Haryana and others, 2016 SCC Online SC 503. 54. Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently re-visited its decision in Pune Municipal Corporation's case (supra) in Civil Appeal No. 5811 of 2015 (Delhi Development Authority v. Sukhbir Singh and others), decided on 09.09.2016, 2016 AIR (SC) 4275. Having found it as a matter of fact that the Delhi Development Authority for whom the land was acquired, handedover compensation amount to the Land Acquisition Collector five years after the Award was pronounced and such amount was never paid to the expropriated owners, the Apex Court re-enforced the principles it laid down in Pune Municipal Corporation's case (supra) and has summed up saying that:- "....14. The picture that therefore emerges on a reading of Section 24(2) is that the State has no business to expropriate from a citizen his property if an award has bee made and the necessary steps to complete acquisition have not been taken for a period of five years or more. There steps include the taking of physical possession of land and payment of compensation. What the legislature is in effect telling the executive is that they ought to have put their house in order and completed the acquisition proceedings within a reasonable time after pronouncement of award. Not having done so even after a leeway of five years is given, would cross the limits of legislative tolerance, after which the whole proceeding would be deemed to have lapsed. Not having done so even after a leeway of five years is given, would cross the limits of legislative tolerance, after which the whole proceeding would be deemed to have lapsed. It is important to notice that the Section gets attracted if the acquisition proceeding is not completed within five years after pronouncement of the award. This may happen either because physical possession of the land has not been taken or because compensation has not been paid, within the said period of five years. A faint submission to the effect that 'or' should be read as 'and' must be turned down for two reasons. The plain natural meaning of the subsection does not lead to any absurdity for us to replace language advisedly used by the Legislature. Secondly, the object of the Act and Section 24 in particular, is that in case an award has been made for five years or more, possession ought to have been taken within this period, or else it is statutorily presumed that the balance between the citizen's right to retain his own property and the right of the State to expropriate it for a public purpose gets so disturbed as to make the acquisition proceedings lapse. Alternatively, if compensation has not been paid within this period, it is also statutorily presumed that the aforesaid balance gets disturbed so as to free such property from acquisition..." (emphasis applied) 55. On the second issue, namely, where physical possession of the acquired land has not been taken within a period of five years after passing of the Award and before the new Act came into force, it appears that such like matters can be broadly classified in the following three groups:- (1) Where the acquired property is a building/structure like residential house, commercial or industrial premises etc. and the State authorities have made no efforts to dispossess the person interested/expropriated owners after acquiring such properties; (2) Where the acquired property comprises vacant and open land and only 'paper possession' was taken but 'physical possession' continued with the land-losers; and (3) Where the State could not dispossess the person interested/expropriated owner from the acquired building/structure or the vacant open land due to stay against dispossession granted by the Court of law. 56. 56. There might be yet another category of cases where there is a serious dispute between the parties on facts whether or not physical possession has been taken by the State or its agencies. We, however, do not propose to express any views on this possible fourth category, for such a controversy has not arisen in the cases so far heard by us. Category No.(1) 57. As regard to the first group of cases, it is by now well settled that wherever State authorities have failed to act upon and allowed the affected owners/occupiers to retain possession of the acquired property for a period of five years or more from the date of passing the Award and before the new Act came into force, such acquisition shall be deemed to have lapsed. We may, in this regard, rely upon the decisions in (i) Bharat Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, (2014) 6 SCC 586 , where acquisition was declared to have lapsed on both counts, namely, physical possession of the land was not taken and the compensation amount was also not paid to the affected owners; (ii) Union of India and others v. Shiv Raj and others, (2014) 6 SCC 564 where physical possession of the acquired property continued with the expropriated owners for the period as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of 2013 Act. 58. There are several other decisions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as different High Courts reiterating these very principles which are not being cited to avoid multiplicity. 59. In view of the settled position, there is no difficulty in answering the question re: first category of cases and to hold that wherever the person interested/land-owner has been allowed to retain possession of the acquired property for a period of five years or more before commencement of 2013 Act, all such acquisitions shall be deemed to have lapsed. Category No.(2) 60. For attracting Section 24(2) of 2013 Act qua the acquisition of vacant and open land, the parameters laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court firstly in Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana and others, (2012) 1 SCC 792 and again re-iterated recently in Delhi Development Authority's case (supra), will have to be meticulously observed. Category No.(2) 60. For attracting Section 24(2) of 2013 Act qua the acquisition of vacant and open land, the parameters laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court firstly in Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana and others, (2012) 1 SCC 792 and again re-iterated recently in Delhi Development Authority's case (supra), will have to be meticulously observed. In Raghbir Singh Sehrawat's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that : "(i) no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to what act would constitute taking of possession of the acquired land. (ii) If the acquired land is vacant, the act of the State authority concerned to go to the spot and prepare a panchnama will ordinarily be treated as sufficient to constitute taking of possession. (iii) If crop is standing on the acquired land or building/structure exists, mere going on the spot by the authority concerned will, by itself, be not sufficient for taking possession. Ordinarily, in such cases, the authority concerned will have to give notice to the occupier of the building/structure or the person who has cultivated the land and take possession in the presence of independent witnesses and get their signatures on the panchnama. Of course, refusal of the owner of the land or building/structure may not lead to an inference that the possession of the acquired land has not been taken. (iv) If the acquisition is of a large tract of land, it may not be possible for the acquiring/designated authority to take physical possession of each and every parcel of the land and it will be sufficient that symbolic possession is taken by preparing appropriate document in the presence of independent witnesses and getting their signatures on such document. (v) If beneficiary of the acquisition is an agency/instrumentality of the State and 80% of the total compensation is deposited in terms of Section 17(3-A) and substantial portion of the acquired land has been utilized in furtherance of the particular public purpose, then the Court may reasonably presume that possession of the acquired land has been taken...." 61. (v) If beneficiary of the acquisition is an agency/instrumentality of the State and 80% of the total compensation is deposited in terms of Section 17(3-A) and substantial portion of the acquired land has been utilized in furtherance of the particular public purpose, then the Court may reasonably presume that possession of the acquired land has been taken...." 61. Somewhat similar and/or additional guidelines have been set out in the decisions in (i) Velaxan Kumar v. Union of India and others, 2015 (1) RCR (Civil) 404; (ii) M/s Magnum Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and others, (2015) 3 SCC 327 and; Banda Development Authority v. Moti Lal Agarwal, 2011 (3) RCR (Civil) 530, laying down that even if possession is said to have been taken by way of 'Panchnama', it must have been attested by independent witnesses and that 'symbolic possession' is not equivalent to 'physical possession' of the acquired property. 62. Each case of vacant and open land has to be thus dealt within the periphery of cited guidelines. At the same time, there would be no necessity to consider whether or not these principles are attracted in a case where the property under acquisition though is vacant and open land but the compensation amount has not been ‘paid' or ‘deposited' in accordance with Section 31(2) of 1894 Act. What is the Legal Effect of 2nd Proviso Added to Section 24(2) of the New Act? 63. In all fairness, the plea taken by the Collector that with the addition of 2nd proviso to Section 24(2) of 2013 Act w.e.f. 31.12.2014, the compensation amount lying deposited in the account maintained by his office would be sufficient and valid compliance of Section 31(2) of 1894 Act may also be dealt with at this stage. 63. In all fairness, the plea taken by the Collector that with the addition of 2nd proviso to Section 24(2) of 2013 Act w.e.f. 31.12.2014, the compensation amount lying deposited in the account maintained by his office would be sufficient and valid compliance of Section 31(2) of 1894 Act may also be dealt with at this stage. The Ordinance No.9 of 2014, published in Gazette on 31.08.2014, led to the addition of following proviso after the existing proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 24 of 2013 Act:- "Provided further that in computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or period during which the proceedings for acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction issued by any Court or the period specified in the award of a Tribunal for taking possession of such period where possession has been taken but the compensation lying deposited in a court or in any account maintained for this purpose shall be excluded...." 64. Clause [1](2) of the Ordinance nevertheless expressly says that "it shall come into force at once". The Legislature thus has consciously introduced the 2nd proviso prospectively and it does not alter the legal position as on 01.01.2014 when the new Act came into force and the legal fiction created by its Section 24(2) became operative at once. 65. The controversy on this aspect has also been set at rest. In R.Radhakrishnan and others v. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and others, (2015) 1 SCALE 590. The Apex Court has held that right conferred to land-owners under Section 24(2) is a statutory right and it cannot be taken away by inserting 'proviso' in the said sub-section through an Ordinance without giving retrospective effect to the same. M/s Radiance Fincap (P) Ltd. & others v. Union of India and others, 2015 (6) RCR (Civil) 60 re-iterates the same principle. Karnail Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2015 SCC Online SC 59 also re-enforce the same view and hold that the Ordinance would not be applicable to the cases which were pending much prior thereto and also the applications under Section 24(2) had been filed prior to the addition in Section 24(2) as the Ordinance is prospective in operation. The defence taken by the Land Acquisition Collector on the strength of the added proviso thus has not merit and is rejected. The defence taken by the Land Acquisition Collector on the strength of the added proviso thus has not merit and is rejected. Category No.(3) 66. Adverting to the cases which fall in Category No.(3), it is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 12.01.2016 passed in Yogesh Neema and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2016) 6 SCC 387 has referred the matter to a Larger Bench to re-consider the legal effect of the absence of any specific exclusion of the period covered by an interim order of the Court, in the context of Section 24 (2) of 2013 Act. Such a reconsideration is required to be made, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, keeping in view the maxim of 'Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit'. 67. Learned counsel for the petitioners forcefully rely upon the decisions in (i) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, (2015) 3 SCC 353 ; (ii) Rajiv Chowdhrie HUF v. Union of India and others, 2014 SCC Online 990; (iii) Sharma Agro Industries v. State of Haryana and others, (2015) 3 SCC 341 ; and (iv) Yogesh Neema and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2016) 6 SCC 387 to urge that the period during which a stay or injunction order granted by Court of law remained operative cannot be excluded while computing the period of 5 years within the meaning of Section 24(2) of the Act and thus where physical possession of the land could not be taken by the State due to interim order passed by the Court, there also the acquisition shall be deemed to have lapsed. 68. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that as of now the above cited decisions explicitly hold that Section 24(2) of 2013 Act will apply with full force even if the expropriated owner had retained possession for the requisite period with the aid of stay order passed by a Court of law. These are all binding precedents. 69. 68. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that as of now the above cited decisions explicitly hold that Section 24(2) of 2013 Act will apply with full force even if the expropriated owner had retained possession for the requisite period with the aid of stay order passed by a Court of law. These are all binding precedents. 69. State of Maharashtra and another v. Sarva Shramik Sangh, Sangli and others (2013) 16 SCC 16 , unequivocally holds that where the Supreme Court has doubted the correctness of its own judgment and referred the matter before a Larger Bench, the earlier judgment on a point of law has to be followed and it will have the binding force within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. We are thus of the view that until the Hon'ble Supreme Court lays down otherwise, the decisions cited in para No.38 of this order are binding on this Court on the interpretation of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act and consequent exclusion or inclusion of the period of stay or injunction against dispossession granted by a Court. 70. We may now determine the fate of the cases in hand in the light of the above discussion and settled legal principles. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners neither consented to receive nor they have actually received the compensation amount except the petitioners No.1 to 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 & 13 to 19 in CWP No. 12150 of 2016 (Ram Chander & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.). It is also not in dispute that the compensation amount in none of these cases was deposited, before 01.01.2014, in the Court before whom reference under Section 18 was maintainable within the meaning of Section 31(2) of 1894 Act. It is also a matter of record that such amount remained lying with the Land Acquisition Collector and thus fell far short of the expression "paid" as interpreted in Pune Municipal Corporation and another's case (supra). 71. The Award in these cases was admittedly passed at least five years before the 2013 Act came into force on 01.01.2014. No amount of compensation was admittedly deposited in accordance with Section 31(2) of 1894 Act with the Court concerned before 01.01.2014 though in one or two cases the authorities have woken up and deposited such amount only after the commencement of the new Act. No amount of compensation was admittedly deposited in accordance with Section 31(2) of 1894 Act with the Court concerned before 01.01.2014 though in one or two cases the authorities have woken up and deposited such amount only after the commencement of the new Act. The newly added 2nd proviso to Section 24(2) also does not rescue the respondents, for it cannot take away a right which had accrued well before such provision came into existence. Consequently, it is held that the impugned acquisition proceedings in all the cases except in the case of petitioners No.1 to 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 & 13 to 19 in CWP No.12150 of 2016 (Ram Chander & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.) are deemed to have lapsed on the ground that the compensation amount has not be paid or deposited for a period of five years or more after the date of passing of the award and before 01.01.2014. 72. As regard to petitioners No.1 to 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 & 13 to 19 in CWP No. 12150 of 2016 (Ram Chander & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.) (at Sr.No.17), we are satisfied that since they have continued to retain physical possession of the acquired land and are still in its cultivating possession and the respondents had only taken symbolic possession on the date of passing of the award, the impugned acquisition proceedings qua them also are deemed to have lapsed on the ground that they have remained and continue to remain in physical possession of the acquired land for a period of five years or more from the date of passing of the award till the new Act came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014. 73. Having held so, we are further of the view that since Section 24(2) of 2013 Act itself in so many words contemplates the possibility of reacquisition of the land/property in respect whereof the previous acquisition has lapsed, it is necessary to direct the petitioners to maintain status quo re: creation of third party rights; to keep the land/property free from all types of encumbrances and not to change the nature of land/property for a period of one year so that meanwhile the respondent-State may, if such property is needed for a "public purpose", again acquire it. Such a direction is necessitated also for the reason that in numerous cases State or its agencies have taken possession in part and development works have been executed except over that land/property in litigation. Those development works ought to be completed in public interest and the only consequence of lapsing of previous acquisition, mostly due to fault of the Government Officers/Officials, would be that the owners of such land/property will be entitled to compensation and other benefits admissible under the 2013 Act.