Kishore Chhabra vs The State Of Haryana

2025 INSC 419 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8968 OF 2013

KISHORE CHHABRA …. APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. .... RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the

High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby the writ petition of the

appellant, calling in question the order dated 17.08.2010 passed by

the respondent/State rejecting his representation for release of his Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

land from acquisition, has been dismissed.

SAPNA BISHT Date: 2025.04.01 17:29:45 IST Reason:

2

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the matter are that the

appellant is the owner in possession of the land and constructed

area measuring 386 sq. yards and 3078 sq. yards at Sultanpur,

Sonipat, Haryana having purchased the same from the owner of

M/s. Haryana Kamoplast Industries, Sonipat vide sale deed dated

04.08.1986.

2.1 On 09.11.1992, the State of Haryana issued notification

under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 1 for acquisition of

land for the development and utilization of land for residential and

commercial area along with sector road at Sonipat. Amongst other

villages, the land situated in appellant's village-Sultanpur was also

the subject matter of acquisition. The total area being 329.70 acres

as per Section 6 Notification issued on 06.11.1993, the appellant's

land was also included in the Notification so issued. The appellant

claims to have submitted objections under Section 5-A of the Act.

The Land Acquisition Collector passed an Award No. 10 on

05.11.1995 mentioning that the possession of the land acquired had

already been taken vide Rapat Rozanamcha No. 229 dated

05.11.1995 and the same vests with the Government.

1 “the Act’ 3

2.2. The appellant's 1st writ petition challenging the land

acquisition proceedings was dismissed by the High Court and his 2nd

writ petition filed in the year 2008 was dismissed as withdrawn as

his representation was pending. The present is the third writ petition

filed by the appellant seeking release of the land as also seeking

quashing of the order dated 17.08.2010 whereby his request for

release of the land was rejected by the State Government.

2.3. The High Court dismissed the writ petition mainly on the

ground that the possession is deemed to have been taken and

continuing with physical possession would not confer any right

whatsoever upon the appellant.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANT

3. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellant strenuously urged that in respect of the

same Notification of the same village the State has released the

land, and on the other hand, land of the appellant has not been

released although the same is similarly situated, as such, the

appellant has been singled out in a discriminatory manner. Learned

senior counsel would refer to and rely upon various orders passed

by the State Government directing release of the land both at the

pre-award and post-award stage. It is further submitted that there 4

is a running factory on the subject land since 1970 i.e. even before

the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act, therefore, his

case for release of the land squarely falls within the parameters set

forth in the State Government's policy dated 26.10.2007. Learned

senior counsel would also urge that the order dated 17.08.2010

rejecting appellant's representation is unsustainable as the same

has been passed without assigning any reason. Learned senior

counsel has placed reliance on "Sube Singh vs. State of

Haryana"2, "Hari Ram Vs. State of Haryana"3, "Sham Lal vs

State of Punjab"4, "Haryana State Industrial Development

Corporation vs. Shakuntla"5, "Raghbir Singh Sehrawat vs.

State of Haryana"6, "Patasi Devi vs. State of Haryana"7, "

Usha Stud & Agricultural Farms (P) Ltd. vs. State of

Haryana"8, "Women's Education Trust vs. State of Haryana"9,

"Siemens Engg. & Mfg. Co. of India Ltd. vs. Union of India10 &

"State of Punjab vs. Bandeep Singh".11

SUBMISSIONS BY STATE OF HARYANA

2 (2001) 7 SCC 545 3 (2010) 3 SCC 621 4 (2013) 14 SCC 393 5 (2010) 12 SCC 448 6 (2012) 1 SCC 792 7 (2012) 9 SCC 503 8 (2013) 4 SCC 210 9 (2013) 8 SCC 99 10 (1976) 2 SCC 981 11 (2016) 1 SCC 724 5

4. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General

appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana has argued that the

writ petition suffers from huge delay and laches; possession of the

land having already been taken, its release is not legally permissible

and that even if any other land has been wrongly released, the

same would not confer any legal right upon the appellant for release

of his land as his case is not covered under the policy. It is also

argued that in response to notice under Section 9 of the Act, the

appellant submitted his claim for grant of compensation @ of Rs.

5,000/- per sq. yard without praying for release of the land. It is

also submitted that in the first writ petition the appellant did not

make any prayer for release of the land and the second writ petition

was dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, the present writ petition

was not maintainable being barred under the principles of res

judicata. Countering the appellant's submission of discrimination,

Mr. Nataraj has distinguished the release orders made in favour of

other landowners.

STATE POLICIES FOR RELEASE OF LAND FROM ACQUISITION:

5. (i) Policy dated 26.06.1991

Para 4 of this policy which was prevalent at the relevant time

provided that the existing factories should not be acquired and 6

should be released from the acquisition proceedings and constructed

area of 'A' and 'B' Grade should be left out of acquisition. Para 6

provided that the area which is liable to be left out or acquired

should be decided at the time of the decision on the report under

Section 5-A of the Act.

(ii) Policy dated 26.10.2007

This policy provided that any factory or commercial

establishment which existed prior to Section 4 Notification will be

considered for release with further stipulation that the Government

may also consider release of land in the interest of integrated and

planned development where the owners have approached the

Hon'ble Court with further proviso that the Government may release

land on the grounds other than stated above under Section 48(1) of

the Act under exceptionally justifiable circumstances for the reasons

to be recorded in writing. In the opening part of this policy, it is

mentioned that no request will be considered after one year of

the award and only those requests will be considered by the

Government where objections under Section 5-A were filed.

(iii) Policy dated 24.01.2011

This policy contained similar provisions like the earlier policy

dated 26.10.2007. However, this policy was issued after passing of 7

the order dated 17.08.2010, therefore, the appellant’s case would

not fall under this policy.

6. The respondent/State is resisting the appellant’s case for

release of land on the ground that the appellant having not

preferred any objection under Section 5-A of the Act and his request

being delayed, he is not entitled for release of land. Objection to

release appellant’s land is also on the ground that the appellant

does not have a valid Change of Land Use12 certificate which is a

fundamental prerequisite for the release of land. Further objection is

on the ground that the land falls within a designated green belt and

substantial government expenditure has already been incurred on

development.

ANALYSIS – WHETHER THE APPELLANT POSSESSES A VALID

CLU.

7. We shall first deal with the core issue as to whether the

appellant possesses a valid CLU for running the factory which he

claims to be running since 1970. The Department of Town & Country

Planning, Government of Haryana declared, vide Notification no.

2366-2TCP-64/24048 dated 23.09.1964, area around Municipal

Town Sonipat as controlled area under Section 4(1) (a) of the

Punjab Scheduled Roads & Controlled Areas Restrictions of

12 ‘CLU’ 8

Unregulated Development Act, 1963. By virtue of the said

provisions and Notification any land falling in the area is required to

obtain CLU for development. The appellant’s land falls within this

controlled area, yet the appellant did not obtain any CLU. In the

material papers available on record, including the pleadings, the

appellant has not submitted any CLU granted in his favour or in

favour of his predecessor. For establishing a factory or any other

commercial development being valid, a CLU is a prerequisite , in the

absence of which, running a factory on the said land cannot be

validated so as to include his case within the sweep of the policy

dated 26.06.1991 or 26.10.2007

8. It is the specific stand of the respondent/State in its

counter affidavit that the appellant has not obtained a CLU to which

the appellant has not submitted any rejoinder. It is thus manifest

that the requirement for CLU being a statutory mandate, release of

land, in the absence of CLU is not permissible.

PLEA OF DISCRIMINATION

9. The appellant’s claim release of land on the plea of

discrimination upon submission that the lands belonging to Devraj

Dewan, Northern India Carbonates Pvt. Ltd., Gatta Factory, Ashok

Kumar Sawing Machine and Deewan Palace have been released from 9

acquisitions. However, the appellant has been singled out for

unfavourable treatment though his case is similarly situated.

10. Material on record reveals that the award was passed on

05.11.1995 and Rapat Roznamcha No. 229 dated 15.11.1995 was

prepared much later than the order of release dated 08.04.1994 in

favour of Devraj Dewan. The said Devraj Dewan submitted his

application for CLU and the State Government took a decision on

31.05.1992 to process the matter for grant of CLU and was

eventually granted before Section 4 Notification, the appellant

cannot claim discrimination vis-à-vis Devraj Dewan. Similar is the

case with Northern India Carbonates Pvt. Ltd and moreover such

land held by Northern India Carbonates Pvt. Ltd which was part of

road/green belt was not released. In respect of other released lands

it is mentioned by the respondent/State in its counter

affidavit/written submissions that the same are not part of the same

Notification. It is, thus, apparent that the appellant’s case stands on

a different footing inasmuch as the appellant has not obtained a

valid CLU. Thus, the appellant’s plea of discrimination is liable to be

rejected.

EXPENDITURE ALREADY INCURRED BY THE STATE

GOVERNMENT IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE ACQUIRED AREA 10

11. In its additional affidavit, the respondent/State of

Haryana has categorically stated that the concerned department of

the State Government has already incurred huge amount on

account of development of the Sectors falling under the Notification

and total expenditure of Rs. 2661.88 lakhs have been incurred

towards the construction of sector roads, water supply networks,

sewerage and stormwater drainage systems. Sector-3, which is

part of the Notification, is commercial sector and the land has been

earmarked for public utilities i.e. Fire Station, Petrol Pump, Police

Station, Telephone Exchange, Auto Market etc. and even 21

commercial plots of large scale have also been allotted to multiplex

developments and are being developed, and one Leisure Vally Park

has already been planned. Thus, release of the subject land will

affect the entire planning of the land acquired under the

Notification. It is also clear from the record that the land in question

is abutting the institutional Plot No. 2, 18-meter-wide road and 30-

meter green belt, hence, release of the land would affect the green

belt/road.

ISSUE OF DELAY, LACHES AND RES JUDICATA

12. On the issue of delay and laches, suffice it would be to

mention that the State has been considering the request for release 11

of land and change of land use as late as in the year 2020-21

whereas the appellant has been pursuing his case for release at

least from the year 2007-08 onwards. Thus, the appellant's request

does not suffer from delay and laches. Insofar as plea of

applicability of principles of res judicata is concerned, the first writ

petition was not for release of land. The second writ petition was

withdrawn because the appellant's representation was pending, and

the present writ petition has been preferred, after his representation

was rejected, impugning the rejection order dated 17.08.2010.

Thus, the appellant's request for release of land has never been

considered on merits by the High Court in any of the writ petitions.

Thus, the appellant’s prayer for release of land cannot be thrown out

on principles of res judicata, however it is not acceptable on merits.

13. For the above stated reasons, we are not inclined to

accept the appellant’s prayer for release of land on the ground of

discrimination. However, since the appellant claims to be in

continuous physical possession of the land wherein a factory is in

operation and the department has not satisfactorily controverted

this aspect of the matter, on the special facts of this case, in

exercise of our power under Article 142, we deem it appropriate to

direct that the compensation payable to the appellant should be

calculated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency 12

in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as

on the date of commencement of the said Act. This order is made

on the peculiar facts of the case and is not to be treated as a

precedent to be relied upon in other cases. It is ordered accordingly.

Resultantly, the appeal is disposed of in the above stated

terms.

No order as to costs.

…………………………………………..J. (B.R. GAVAI)

…………………………………………..J. (PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)

…………………………………………..J. (K.V. VISWANATHAN) NEW DELHI;

APRIL 01, 2025