JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. CM-1495-CWP of 2024 and RA-CW-35 of 2024 1. Considering the valid, and, good reasons, as meted in the application for condoning the apposite delay of 107 days, therefore, the application is allowed. 2. Delay of 107 days in filing the review application, is condoned. CM-1494-CWP of 2024 in RA-CW-35 of 2024 in CWP-1161 of 2006 3. Civil Writ Petition bearing No. CWP-1161-2006 became decided alongwith connected writ petitions through a verdict drawn thereon on 6.9.2023. However, today an application has been filed at the instance of the legal representatives of the deceased in the writ petitions (supra). An awakening therein has been made to this Court today by the legal representatives of deceased petitioner, that the said writ petitioner expired on 17.4.2016. However, despite hers thus expiring during the pendency of the said writ petition, yet no application became instituted for ensuring that her estate becomes substituted by her legal representatives. In sequel, when only in respect of the deceased litigant (supra), as such the verdict, as became drawn is non-est, thereby the same is required to be recalled. However, before proceeding to recall the verdict (supra) made on 6.9.2023 on the said writ petition, alongwith connected writ petitions, it is deemed appropriate to order for the substitution of the deceased petitioner concerned, in the apposite writ petition rather by her legal representatives, as disclosed in Para No. 2 of the application. Amended memo of parties, as appended with the application, is taken on record. 4. No notice is required to be issued upon the legal representatives of the deceased (supra), as they stand represented by her counsel Mr. Pankaj Yadav, Advocate. 5. In view of the above, the review application is allowed and the final order dated 6.9.2003 drawn, upon, CWP-1161 of 2006 is recalled. CWP-1161 of 2006 6. The claims raised in the instant petition are similar to those as became ventilated in the connected lead writ petition i.e. CWP-601 of 2006. However, for reasons similar to the ones, as become assigned in CWP-601 of 2006, thus this Court is constrained to also dismiss the instant petition (supra). 7. Emphatically also, with the pointed mentionings which occur in the reply on affidavit, qua the acquired lands, thus being an integral part of the developmental activities, which are to become carried thereons, at the instance of the concerned. 7. Emphatically also, with the pointed mentionings which occur in the reply on affidavit, qua the acquired lands, thus being an integral part of the developmental activities, which are to become carried thereons, at the instance of the concerned. Therefore, since there is a dire necessity of retention of the acquired lands, as thereupon the relevant public purpose would become sub-served, thereupon since the sub-serving of public purpose (supra) predominates the sub-servings of private individual interest. Resultantly the claim for release of the acquired lands rather is flimsily or pertextually raised, and, is required to be discountenanced. 8. Moreover, for the other assigned reasons in the connected lead writ petition i.e. CWP-601 of 2006, thus the said reasons supported hence also by tangible evidence, also become the ones which also likewise constrain this Court to dismiss the instant writ petition. 9. The leverage of the apposite lapsing mandate as embodied in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, also cannot become ably assigned to the petitioners. The reason being that the possession of the acquired lands became evidently assumed through Rapat No. 345 drawn on 20.01.2006, besides the determined compensation amount became tendered in terms of Section 31 of the Act of 1894, for thereby its becoming available for being claimed by the estate-holders concerned. 10. In consequence, after assigning answers adversarial to the petitioners, upon the hereinafter extracted issues, this Court is constrained to dismiss the instant writ petition: “(1) Whether the lands being acquired from the ownership of the appellants qualify for exemption in terms of the relevant scheme and policy according to which such of the lands as are already used for construction purpose before the issue of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, can be exempted. (2) Whether the acquisition proceedings initiated in terms of the notification dated 27th January, 2003 and declaration dated 23rd January, 2014 have lapsed in terms of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.” 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- each, upon the petitioners, to be forthwith de-posited by the petitioners with the ‘Himachal Pradesh Aapada Raahat Kosh 2023’ for mitigating the natural disaster in the State concerned.