[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

[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