A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

State of Haryana & Others v. Aalamgir & Others, [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1460 ; 2025 INSC 407, concerns multiple writ petitions before the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging the validity of land acquisition processes undertaken under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the LA Act, 1894) and subsequent relief sought under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act).

The High Court in several matters followed this Court’s earlier decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183, granting relief under Section 24(2). Thereafter a five-Judge Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129, revisited and overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and clarified the scope, interpretation and interplay of Section 24(1) and Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

The State of Haryana challenged the High Court orders in a batch of appeals. The Supreme Court declined to decide the merits afresh, held that Indore Development Authority governs, set aside the impugned High Court orders and remanded the writ petitions for fresh consideration applying the ratio in Indore Development Authority.

The Court preserved existing status quo orders pending fresh adjudication, permitted respondents to raise all available contentions including equitable and subsequent developments, and directed substitution where necessary. The Court also dealt with condonation of delay in filing SLPs and fixed a sliding scale of costs. Remand and directions were issued without expressing views on merits.

Keywords: land acquisition, Section 24(2) 2013 Act, lapse of acquisition, possession and payment of compensation, Indore Development Authority, Pune Municipal Corporation, status quo, remand, equitable considerations.

B) CASE DETAILS 

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The present batch addresses multiple writ petitions decided by the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging land acquisitions effected under Sections 4 and 6 of the LA Act, 1894. After enforcement of the 2013 Act (effective 1-1-2014) many landowners and subsequent purchasers invoked Section 24(2) claiming deemed lapse of acquisition where possession and compensation were not both completed for five years prior to the 2013 Act.

The High Court in some matters followed Pune Municipal Corporation and granted relief accordingly. Subsequently, a five-Judge Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal re-examined the proper reading of Section 24(2), held that lapse occurs only where neither possession nor payment of compensation occurred for five years (reading “or” as nor/and in the statutory context), clarified that deposit in court is not payment for the main part of Section 24(2), and limited revival or reopening of long-concluded proceedings.

The State of Haryana appealed the High Court decisions that had applied Pune Municipal Corporation. Given the divergent jurisprudence, the Supreme Court remitted the matters for fresh factual determination applying the legal framework laid down in Indore Development Authority, while conserving interim status quo and granting procedural directions to preserve parties’ rights. The Court also addressed procedural matters such as condonation of delay and costs.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Multiple writ petitions were instituted by various landowners and subsequent purchasers before the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging land acquisition notifications and processes enacted under Sections 4 and 6 of the LA Act, 1894. In many matters challenge had been raised earlier; in several others fresh petitions were filed after the 2013 Act came into force seeking relief under Section 24(2), alleging that due to administrative inaction for five years or more prior to 1-1-2014 neither possession had been taken nor compensation paid, resulting in deemed lapse.

Some petitions also raised distinct challenges to the validity of acquisition procedures (modes of notice, service, measurement, deposition of compensation etc.). The High Court in some matters applied Pune Municipal Corporation and held acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2), granting relief. The State aggrieved filed a host of SLPs before the Supreme Court.

During pendency many matters had interim status quo orders; in some matters concessions were recorded by the State; there were also instances of subsequent developments on the land, third-party dealings, and even deaths of original respondents, necessitating substitution. The multiplicity and factual diversity of cases were such that application of the Indore Development Authority ratio required examination of original records and fact-finding by the High Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether proceedings for land acquisition pending on 1-1-2014 lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act where compensation has not been paid or possession not taken for five years prior to enforcement?
ii. Whether deposit of compensation in court qualifies as “payment” under Section 24(2)’s main part?
iii. Whether landowners who were tendered compensation or sought references can claim lapse under Section 24(2)?
iv. Whether Section 24(2) opens a fresh cause of action to attack concluded acquisition proceedings?
v. What is the interplay between interim orders and computation of the five-year period under Section 24(2)?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Petitioners/Appellants (State of Haryana and others) submitted that the High Court orders following Pune Municipal Corporation were erroneous after Indore Development Authority which overruled Pune Municipal Corporation. They urged that Section 24(2) should be read in light of Indore Development Authority lapse arises only where neither possession nor payment has occurred for five years prior to 1-1-2014.

They contended that deposit in court does not automatically lead to lapse; that tender of compensation or proceedings under Section 31(1) preclude a claim of lapse; and that reopening long concluded acquisitions is impermissible since Section 24 does not create a new cause of action to revisit legality of completed acquisitions. They sought remand for factual determination as the original records must be examined to apply Indore Development Authority’s factual tests.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for respondents submitted that the High Court correctly applied Pune Municipal Corporation and that many cases featured inaction by authorities for five years preceding 1-1-2014 such that acquisitions had lapsed under Section 24(2). They argued deposit in court should be treated as non-payment for purposes of the main limb of Section 24(2) and that many petitioners had not been paid nor had possession been taken. Respondents asked the Court to uphold the High Court orders granting relief. They also urged protection of subsequent developments and equitable adjustments where the High Court had already declared lapse and lands had been released.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. Section 4, Section 6, Section 16, Section 31(1), Section 34 — Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
ii. Section 24(1) and Section 24(2) — Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
iii. Principles of writ jurisdiction (Articles 32/226) and equitable remedies.

I) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court granted leave, condoned delays in SLPs subject to costs on a graduated scale, set aside the impugned High Court orders and remanded the writ petitions to the High Court for fresh consideration applying the legal framework in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129. The Court held that application of Indore Development Authority requires determination of specific facts whether possession was taken or compensation paid (not merely deposited) within the relevant five-year window excluding the period of interim judicial orders.

The Court declined to resolve the factual disputes itself given multiplicity and variability of records across matters. The Court preserved existing status quo orders where they existed until the High Court disposes the writ petitions. It granted liberty to respondents to raise all available contentions on validity of acquisition (de hors Section 24(2)), and to invoke equitable arguments considering subsequent developments or third-party rights that may have arisen during the intervening period.

Where respondents had died, substitution was permitted and the High Court directed to issue fresh notices if necessary. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on merits and emphasized that concessions or consent orders earlier recorded should be treated in accordance with law and may be relied upon by parties where appropriate.

Further, procedural directions required deposit of costs with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre and proof of such deposit before the High Court. The order thus functioned as a remedial roadmap to ensure consistent application of Indore Development Authority while protecting interim equities.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The operative ratio is that the five-Judge Bench decision in Indore Development Authority governs interpretation of Section 24(2): lapse under Section 24(2) occurs only where, for five years prior to 1-1-2014 and excluding periods covered by interim judicial orders, neither possession has been taken nor compensation has been paid thus the disjunctive “or” must be read so as to require absence of both acts (practically treated as nor/and in context).

Deposit of compensation in court is not equivalent to payment under the main limb of Section 24(2); however non-deposit does not automatically operate as lapse the proviso to Section 24(2) prescribes consequences where non-deposit pertains to majority holdings for five years.

Tender of compensation under Section 31(1) completes the obligation so as to bar a later claim of lapse. Section 24(2) does not create a new right to reopen or attack concluded acquisitions; it applies only to proceedings in fieri as on 1-1-2014. These principles must be applied factually in each case by the High Court.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed obiter that interim status quo orders should be respected during remand; that subsequent developments, third-party rights, concessions and consent orders may be considered by the High Court in the exercise of its equitable and legal jurisdiction; and that parties should be permitted to rely on concessions previously made by the State subject to law.

The Court also stated that where awards have been passed and possession taken under Section 16 of the LA Act, 1894, vesting in the State occurs and Section 24(2) does not operate to divest unless the precise statutory conditions are met. These observations underscore that Section 24 is not a vehicle to contest legality of mode of taking possession or concluded processes without satisfying the statutory threshold.

c. GUIDELINES 

i. Remand to High Court for fresh fact-finding applying Indore Development Authority’s tests.
ii. Continue existing status quo orders until High Court disposal.
iii. Permit respondents to raise all available contentions on validity of acquisition, including equitable pleas and subsequent developments.
iv. In cases of deceased respondents, High Court to issue fresh notices and allow substitution of legal representatives.
v. Concessions or consent orders may be relied upon; High Court to examine such concessions in the light of law and facts.
vi. Computation of five years excludes periods of interim judicial orders.
vii. Deposit in court is not equivalent to “payment” for the main limb of Section 24(2) but consequences of non-deposit are governed by the proviso.
viii. Tender of compensation under Section 31(1) completes obligation and precludes lapse claim.
ix. Costs for condonation are fixed on a sliding scale to be deposited with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre and proof produced before the High Court.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s order pragmatically reconciles competing precedents by insisting on application of the authoritative five-Judge bench in Indore Development Authority across the batch. By remanding for fact-specific adjudication, the Court preserves procedural fairness and prevents mechanical application of an overruled precedent while ensuring that interim equities are maintained.

The directions preserve litigants’ rights to press substantive challenges to acquisition validity independent of Section 24(2), thereby acknowledging that relief under the 2013 Act is not the exclusive route for contesting defects in acquisition procedure. The clarification on deposit vs payment, the treatment of tender under Section 31(1), and exclusion of interim order periods from the five-year computation, provide pivotal principles to guide future disputes.

Practitioners should note that Section 24 does not function as a broad revival or reopening provision; careful documentary proof of possession, payment, deposit, and dates of interim orders will be decisive. The Court’s measured approach balancing precedent, facts and equity furnishes a structured procedure for High Courts to apply the Indore Development Authority framework consistently across diverse factual matrices.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. State of Haryana & Others v. Aalamgir & Others, [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1460 ; 2025 INSC 407.
ii. Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129. (Five-Judge Bench — ratio applied).
iii. Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183. (Earlier precedent overruled in Indore).

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (relevant: Sections 4, 6, 16, 31(1), 34).
ii. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (relevant: Section 24(1), Section 24(2)).