State Of Haryana vs Niranjan Singh

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1347­1349 OF 2023 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 11842­11844/2022)

State of Haryana & Ors. ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Niranjan Singh & Ors. Etc. …Respondent(s) With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1351 OF 2023 (@ SLP (C) No. 3980 /2023) (@ D. No. 37052/2022)

JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

common judgment and order dated 09.04.2021 passed by

the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in

CWP No. 16346/2013, CWP No. 6729/2013 and CWP No.

10452/2014, by which, the Division Bench of the High Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2023.02.24 Court has allowed the said writ petitions and has set aside 16:49:45 IST Reason:

the action of the State in declining prayer of the original

1 writ petitioners – original land owners for release of their

respective acquired land(s) and consequently, has directed

to release their respective acquired land(s) from

acquisition, the State of Haryana and others have

preferred the present appeals. Feeling aggrieved and

dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed

in writ petition ­ CWP No. 10452/2014, the beneficiaries of

the acquisition have also preferred the present appeal

arising out of Diary No. 37052/2022.

1.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that Civil Appeal

No. 1347/2023 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11842/2022 is

concerned, the same is against the impugned judgment

and order passed by the High Court in CWP No.

6729/2013. Civil Appeal No. 1348/2023 arising out of SLP

(C) No. 11843/2022 is concerned, the same is against the

impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in

CWP No. 16346/2013 and Civil Appeal No. 1349/2023

arising out of SLP (C) No. 11844/2022 is concerned, the

same is against the impugned judgment and order passed

by the High Court in CWP No. 10452/2014.

2

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of CWP No.

16346/2013 are considered which was also considered by

the High Court as a lead matter.

FACTS IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.1348 /2023 ARISING OUT OF CWP NO. 16346/2013

2.1 That the State of Haryana issued a notification dated

21.04.1987 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), intending to

acquire the land measuring 35.76 acres for the

development and utilization of land as residential and

commercial Sector 11, Kurukshetra and the same was

followed with declaration/notification under Section 6 of

the Act dated 20.04.1988. The objections were invited from

all the concerned land owners. That thereafter, the award

was pronounced by the Land Acquisition Collector on

12.04.1990 for the land measuring 34.61 acres only. That

thereafter, a further notification was issued by the State of

Haryana under Section 4 of the Act dated 11.02.2002 for

acquiring the land measuring 126.30 acres for residential,

commercial and institutional purposes in Sector 6 and 11,

Kurukshetra. It appears that even before the issuance of

3 notification under Section 6 of the Act, the land measuring

81.91 acres belonging to 43 land holders came to be

released, details of which shall be considered hereinbelow.

That thereafter, except the original writ petitioners of CWP

No. 16346/2013, rest of the lands acquired belonging to

the different land holders came to be released from

acquisition either by the State Government or pursuant to

the order(s) passed by the High Court in various writ

petitions, the area of which amounts to 40.80 acres. The

particulars of the land released with respect to the land

acquired vide notification dated 21.04.1987 in tabular

form are as under: ­

Sr. Acquisition details of land acquired under Area in No. L.A. Act, 1894 acres

1. Section ­4, 21.4.1987 46.49

2. Land excluded u/s 5 A 10.83

3. Section ­6, 20.4.1988 35.66

4. Land released between u/s 6 and award 1.05

5. Award 12.04.1990 34.61

6. Land released after award 26.83

7. Balance Land Area [5­(6+7)] 7.78

8. CWPs pending u/s 24(2) 4.056

9. CWPs pending other than u/s 24(2) 1.125

10. CWPs dismissed/acquisition upheld NA

11. CWPs allowed/acquisition quashed by 0.50 Hon’ble High Court where SLP filed or yet to be filed.

4 2.2 That thereafter, the original writ petitioners filed the writ

petition before the High Court challenging the acquisition

by filing CWP No. 371/2008 which came to be dismissed

as withdrawn vide order dated 11.01.2008 by granting

liberty to the land owners to file a representation before

the authorities concerned for redressal of their grievance.

As a result of which, the original writ petitioners filed a

representation dated 22.01.2008 praying for release of

their acquired land on parity with the similarly situated

persons whose land was released by the State. That

thereafter, after the second round of litigation, the

representation came to be dismissed and the prayer of the

original land owners to release their land from acquisition

came to be rejected. The same was the subject matter of

CWP No. 16346/2013 before the High Court.

2.3 Now, so far as Civil Appeal arising out of CWP No.

6729/2013 is concerned, the representation filed by the

original land owners for release of their acquired land

came to be rejected vide order dated 15.06.2012, which

was the subject matter of CWP No. 6729/2013.

5 2.4 Similarly, original writ petitioner – Anita Kumari Sharma

filed CWP No. 10452/2014 before the High Court rejecting

their prayer to release the land from acquisition.

2.5 By the impugned common judgment and order, the High

Court has allowed the said writ petitions and has set aside

the orders/notifications issued by the Government and the

action of the State Government in declining prayer of the

writ petitioners – original land owners for release of their

respective acquired land(s) being violative of Article 14 of

the Constitution of India by observing that the major

chunk of the land belonging to the similarly situated land

owners already stood released. Consequently, the High

Court has directed to release the land belonging to the

original land owners from the acquisition.

2.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

common judgment and order passed by the High Court,

the State of Haryana and others have preferred the present

appeals.

3. Shri Alok Sangwan, learned AAG appearing on behalf of

the State has vehemently submitted that as such the land

in question is needed by the State and therefore, the High

6 Court has materially erred in directing to release the land

in question from acquisition.

3.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Sangwan, learned AAG

appearing on behalf of the State that once the lands in

question have been acquired after following the due

procedure required under the Act and thereafter, the

award came to be passed and even the compensation was

paid and the possession was taken over and the lands

actually vested in the State Government/acquiring body. It

is submitted that therefore, the High Court has materially

erred in directing to release the acquired lands from

acquisition.

3.2 It is further submitted by learned AAG that the High Court

has not properly appreciated the fact that other lands were

released by the State pursuant to the order(s) passed by

the High Court in various writ petitions.

3.3 It is further submitted by learned AAG appearing on behalf

of the State that so far as the land acquired with respect to

CWP No. 10452/2014 is concerned, the land in question is

already utilized and used for the sewage line and Rs. 17

crores have been spent in constructing the sewage line and

7 it is submitted that therefore, if the land is released, as

ordered by the High Court, the same shall be against the

public interest and the entire sewage line which has been

constructed after spending Rs. 17 crores will have to be

removed. Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the residents of the locality has also

vehemently submitted that if the land in question is

released from acquisition as ordered by the High Court in

that case the sewage line already constructed will have to

be removed which will be against the public interest and

also against the interest of the residents of the locality.

3.4 It is further submitted that so far as the land with respect

to CWP No. 6729/2013 is concerned, the same is required

by the State for widening of the road and therefore, the

State was justified in refusing to release the land from

acquisition.

3.5 Now, so far as the land with respect to CWP No.

16346/2013 is concerned, it is submitted that the said

land is required for constructing the shopping mall and

the parking and therefore, the prayer of the original land

8 owners to release their land(s) from acquisition was rightly

rejected by the authority.

3.6 Making the above submissions, it is vehemently submitted

by learned AAG that the High Court has materially erred in

quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the

State/authority rejecting the prayer of the original writ

petitioners – land owners to release their land(s) from

acquisition and the High Court has materially erred in

directing to release the acquired land(s) in question from

acquisition.

4. While opposing Civil Appeal arising out of CWP No.

16346/2013, Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned Senior

Advocate has vehemently submitted that in the present

case, the State Government has released the major chunk

of the land arising out of the very notification and only,

small portion of the land belonging to the original writ

petitioners have not been released. He has taken us to the

map showing that except the plot/land in question of the

original writ petitioners and others, all other major chunk

of the lands have been released from acquisition. He has

vehemently submitted that out of total land approximately

9 46.49 acres for which the notification under Section 4 was

issued, land measuring 10.83 acres came to be excluded

at the stage of inquiry under Section 5 A. The award came

to be declared with respect to the land measuring 34.61

acres only and thereafter, the land measuring 26.83 acres

came to be further released after the award was passed

and the land measuring 7.78 acres came to be continued

under acquisition, out of which further two writ petitions

are pending with respect to the land measuring 4.056

acres and 1.125 acres and it is submitted that only small

plot(s) of the original writ petitioners have not been

released, which has already been observed and held by the

High Court that the same is discriminatory and violative of

Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

4.1 Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners has

further submitted that one Vipin Jindal whose lands was

declared under the same notification, filed writ petition

(CWP) No. 3780/2008 before the High Court challenging

the acquisition and also praying for release of the land(s)

from acquisition, which came to be dismissed by the High

10 Court vide order dated 13.03.2008. It is submitted that the

said Vipin Jindal filed civil appeal(s) before this Court and

this Court disposed of the said civil appeal(s) by permitting

the land owner(s) to file a representation before the

appropriate authority of the State Government to release

the land from acquisition. It is submitted that this Court

has specifically observed that somewhat inconsistent

stand has been taken on the part of the State Government

and if, similarly situated persons had been granted relief,

the appellant therein ought to be granted similar relief. It

is submitted that thereafter, land belonging to the said

Vipin Jindal has been released by order dated 02.08.2016

on the condition that he will return the compensation

amount received by him to the department along with

interest and he will surrender the land falling in the road

alignment HUDA.

4.2 Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners has also

taken us to the judgment and order passed by the High

Court in writ petition No. 5732/1988, by which, the High

Court has quashed the acquisition. Shri Neeraj Kumar

11 Jain, learned Senior Advocate has also taken us to the

judgment and order passed by the High Court in CWP No.

11377/1988, by which, the High Court quashed the

acquisition by observing that the State Government

withdrew from acquisition some of the area which

belonged to the then Speaker of the Haryana Vidhan

Sabha and another portion belonging to the Radha Swami

Satsang, Kurukshetra. It is submitted that therefore, the

High Court observed that the decision of the State

Government to continue with the acquisition was arbitrary

and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is

further submitted by Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned

Senior Advocate that except small parcel/portion of the

land belonging to the original writ petitioners all other

major chunk of the lands/plots have been released and the

land in question is not required now and therefore, there is

no valid reason not to release the land(s) of the original

land owners from acquisition. It is submitted that

therefore, the High Court has not committed any error in

allowing the writ petitions and directing the State to

release their lands from acquisition on the parity.

12 4.3 Shri Sachin Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the original writ petitioners in SLP (C) No. 11844/2022

arising out of CWP No. 10452/2014, though is not

disputing that the land in question belonging to the

original writ petitioner has already been utilized and used

for sewage line, submitted that the remaining land after

deducting the land already used for laying down the pipes

be released.

4.4 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ

petitioners in SLP (C) No. 11842/2022 arising out of CWP

No. 6729/2013 has adopted the submissions made by Shri

Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned Senior Advocate.

5. Having heard Shri Alok Sangwan, learned AAG, appearing

on behalf of the State and Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned

Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the original writ

petitioners in civil appeal arising out of CWP No.

16346/2013 before the High Court and having gone

through the material on record and the manner in which

the State has dealt with the acquisition proceedings and

has released the lands acquired from time to time right

13 from the proceedings at the stage of Section 5 A of the Act

and thereafter is highly deprecable. Earlier the lands have

been released by the State Government initially in favour

of the influential persons and thereafter pursuant to the

various orders passed by the High Court which were never

challenged by the State, it demonstrates the arbitrary

exercise of powers by the State in releasing the acquired

lands which as such required for public purposes. At the

outset, it is required to be noted that when the lands are

acquired for the utilization and development as residential

and commercial area to develop new sectors and that too

by the urban development authority, the future need is

required to be considered and the expansion in future is

also required to be taken into consideration and/or bear in

mind. The expansion in future in the next 20­25 years is

required to be taken into consideration and/or is required

to be considered when use of such a vast land for the

development of the area/new sectors are required.

5.1 In the present case, it is not in dispute that large chunk of

area measuring 46.49 acres was acquired as far as back

on 21.04.1987. Such a large chunk of land was acquired

14 for the development and utilization of land as residential

and commercial area in Sector 11, Kurukshetra by the

Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). Out of

46.49 acres of land acquired vide notification under

Section 4, 10.83 acres of land came to be excluded from

acquisition at the stage of notification under Section 5 A.

Out of remaining 35.66 acres of land, 1.05 acres of land

was released between Section 6 notification and the award.

Thereafter, out of remaining 34.61 acres of land, 26.83

acres of land came to be released after award dated

12.04.1990. Therefore, the balance land remained to the

extent of 7.78 acres only, out of which even at present

approximately 6 acres of land acquired is under litigation.

Therefore, the land with respect to the original writ

petitioners of CWP No. 16346/2013 is only small plots of

the land which remained. If the map produced on record is

considered except the present small portion/plot in

question, all other major chunk of the land, the particulars

of which are given as above, have been released either by

the State on its own and/or pursuant to the order(s)

passed by the High Court which were never challenged by

15 the State and it seems that the State was happy with the

decision of the High Court directing to release the lands

from acquisition. In the earlier order passed by this Court

in Civil Appeals No. 3235­3237/2015 with respect to the

lands acquired by the very notification, it appears that this

Court took note of the release of the lands by the State

Government upon refund of compensation. This Court

took note of the fact that several land owners whose lands

were acquired filed writ petitions challenging the

notification, which writ petitions were however, withdrawn

with liberty to file representations with the State

Government and thereafter, the representations were

answered in favour of the writ petitioners by ordering

release of the land after refund of compensation. Therefore,

this Court in the case of Vipin Jindal (supra) also

relegated/permitted the said land owner to file a

representation by observing that somewhat inconsistent

stand has been taken on the part of the Government. That

thereafter, the representation of Vipin Jindal has been

considered favourably and his land has been released from

acquisition.

16 5.2 Even from the judgment and order passed by the High

Court in CWP No. 11377/1988, by which, the High Court

allowed the said writ petition and quashed the acquisition

with respect to some of the lands acquired by the said

notification, it appears that what weighed with the High

Court was after the notification under Section 6 of the Act,

the Government withdrew from acquisition some of the

area which belonged to the then Speaker of the Haryana

Vidhan Sabha and another portion belonging to the Radha

Swami Satsang, Kurukshetra.

5.3 Thus, from the aforesaid, it is apparent that earlier except

the land in question belonging to the writ petitioners of

CWP No. 16346/2013, all other lands have been released

except the small parcel/plot of the lands belonging to the

original writ petitioners. Now, non­release of land is sought

to be justified on the ground that the same is now

proposed to be used as shopping mall and parking. It is

required to be noted that the land in question has been

acquired in the year 1987 along with the total land

measuring 46.49 acres, out of which, except the present

17 small parcel/part of the land, all other lands have been

released and/or the acquisition with respect to same have

been quashed. Considering the aforesaid facts and

circumstances, when the High Court has allowed the writ

petition ­ CWP No. 16346/2013 and has quashed the

acquisition proceedings and has directed to release the

land in question, it cannot be said that the learned Single

Judge and/or Division Bench of the High Court has

committed any error which caused for interference of this

Court. No interference of this Court is called for. However,

at the cost of repetition, we deprecate the manner in which

the State has dealt with the acquisition proceedings and

have released the land(s) and/or permitted the acquisition

to be quashed in a most arbitrary manner. The lands as

such were acquired for the residential and commercial

development purposes which could not have been utilized

and used for public purposes and development of the

area/sector and the State Government by exercising the

powers arbitrarily and/or in favoritism has failed to use

the lands for public purposes for which the lands were

acquired. The State Government is guardian of the public

18 interest and the public and the public interest was

required to be considered the paramount interest rather

than releasing the lands at initial stage in favour of the

influential persons. The State shall take care in future and

must use the lands acquired for the purpose for which the

same have been acquired otherwise the object and purpose

of acquiring the land will be frustrated.

5.4 Now, so far as the Civil Appeal arising out of CWP No.

10452/2014 is concerned, at the outset it is required to be

noted that the land in question is already utilized and used

for the sewage lines and approximately Rs. 17 crores have

been spent in constructing sewage lines. Therefore, the

High Court has committed a very serious error in quashing

and setting aside the acquisition with respect to the said

land which is already put to use for the sewage lines which

is being used for the public purpose and for the residents

of the locality. If the judgment and order passed by the

High Court stands in that case, the entire sewage lines will

have to be removed which has been constructed after

spending Rs. 17 crores and which is being used for public

purpose. The submissions on behalf of the original writ

19 petitioners is that leaving aside the land which is already

used for the sewage lines, the remaining land be released

cannot be accepted. The part land cannot be released

and/or with respect to the part land, the acquisition

cannot be quashed. It is required to be noted that in the

present case the acquisition has been completed including

acquiring the land, passing the award and payment of

compensation and the land in question is vested in the

State Government free from all encumbrances. Under the

circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed

by the High Court in CWP No. 10452/2014 is

unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and

set aside.

5.5 Similarly, so far as the Civil Appeal arising out CWP No.

6729/2013 is concerned, the representation of the original

writ petitioners to release the land from acquisition is

rejected on the ground that the land is required for

widening of the road. Having gone through the map, we are

of the opinion that when the land in question is required

by the State for widening of the road and when the entire

acquisition proceedings have been concluded including

20 declaration of the award, passing of the award and the

payment of the compensation, the acquisition with respect

to the said land which is required for widening of the road

ought not to have been quashed and/or the same land was

not required to be released. The State was absolutely

justified in not releasing the said land which as such is

required for the widening of the road. Under the

circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed

by the High Court in CWP No. 6729/2013 deserves to be

quashed and set aside.

6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, Civil

Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 11843/2022 arising out

of the impugned judgment and order passed in CWP No.

16346/2013 is hereby dismissed with the above

observations.

7. For the reasons stated above, Civil Appeals, arising out of

SLP (C) No. 11844/2022 (arising out of CWP No.

10452/2014) and SLP (C) No. 11842/2022 (arising out of

CWP No. 6729/2013) and arising out of SLP (C) No. 3980

of 2023, are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment(s)

and order(s) passed by the High Court in CWP Nos.

21 10452/2014 and 6729/2013 are hereby quashed and set

aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case there

shall be no order as to costs.

………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J. FEBRUARY 24, 2023 [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]

22