Important Point
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the rejection of the request of the appellants for exclusion of their land having structures on them is arbitrary and discriminatory. Respondent-1 is directed to consider the request again in accordance with law.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4, 5A and 6—Proposed land acquisition—Representations by appellants that they had built structures for residential and/or commercial purposes on the lands owned by them and according to the policy decision by State Govt. such lands are to be excluded for acquisition—Rejected in their cases but accepted in similar other cases—Whether correct ? (No)—Appeals allowed accordingly.
Held : On the facts and circumstances of the case revealed from the records, we are persuaded to accept the contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the rejection of the request of the appellants for exclusion of their land having structures on them was not based on a fair and reasonable consideration of the matter. We are of the view that such action of the Government is arbitrary and discriminatory. Unfortunately, the High Court failed to judge the cases in its proper perspective. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The judgments under challenge are set aside, the orders passed by the State Government rejecting the representation of the appellants are quashed. The Secretary, Urban Estates Department, State of Haryana, respondent No. 1 herein, is directed to consider the objection petitions filed by the appellants for exclusion of their properties from the acquisition and pass appropriate order excluding such lands having structures on them excepting any land which is required for construction of a road or hospital. Respondent No.1 shall give opportunity of hearing to the appellants before taking the decision. The exercise shall be completed expeditiously if possible within three months. There will, however, be no order for costs. (Paras 11 and 12)

Judgment

D.P. Mohapatra , J.—Leave granted.

2. These appeals filed by the writ petitioners are directed against the judgment rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 13th August, 1998 in which eight writ petitions filed by the appellants and others were decided. Six out of the eight writ petition, Nos. 4955, 6036, 4091, 8059, 5994 and 5174 of 1997 were dismissed while Writ Petition Nos. 5160 and 6012 of 1997 were allowed and the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), insofar as it related to the petitioners in those two cases was quashed.

3. The High Court by a separate judgment rendered on 8.4.1999 dismissed eight other similar writ petitions Nos. 16399/96, 15228, 15549 of 1997, 403, 3524, 3677, 4752 & 15511 of 1998. In another judgment rendered on 17.2.2000 the High Court dismissed the Civil Writ Petition No. 8275/1997.

4. Since the relevant facts and the grounds of challenge against the judgments are similar in all these cases they are being disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience we shall refer to the facts in the first batch of cases referred to above.

5. The State of Haryana issued the notification dated 26th May, 1995 under Section 4 of the Act expressing its intention to acquire an area of 193.37 acres for the purpose of development, utilisation for residential, industrial and commercial purposes for pocket of Sectors 1 & 2 in the Town Bahadurgarh, district Rohtak by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. The appellants claiming to be the owners/occupiers of certain lands proposed to be acquired filed their objections against the acquisition under Section 5A of the Act. They questioned the validity of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on several grounds including non-compliance with the mandatory provisions regarding publication of the notification giving wide publicity in the locality, denial of opportunity of personal hearing under Section 5A of the Act, non-application of mind by the concerned authorities on the points, taken in the objection petitions filed by them that they had built structures for residential and/or commercial purposes on the lands owned by them and according to the policy decision of the State Government such lands are to be excluded from acquisition. The Land Acquisition Collector considering the objection petitions filed by the appellants, other than appellant No. 2 –Ram Kumar Gupta, recommended to the State Government for exclusion of the lands on the ground that there were structures standing on the same. The State Government, however, did not accept the recommendation and stood by the decision to acquire the land with the structures thereon. Notifications were issued under Sections 6 and 9 of the Act in due course.

6. In the writ petitions filed by the appellants the objections taken before the Land Acquisition Collector were reiterated and the High Court’s intervention was sought for releasing the lands on the ground of invalidity of the Notification under Section 6 of the Act and also on the ground for exclusion of the land with structures from acquisition.

7. The High Court, on examination of the records produced before it and on consideration of the contentions raised by counsel appearing for the parties, rejected the contention relating to denial of opportunity of hearing on the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5A of the Act excepting the two writ petitions noted earlier in which the Court held that reasonable opportunity of hearing had not been granted to the petitioners. Regarding the contention of release of the lands with structures thereon from acquisition the High Court was not inclined to accept the same holding that there is no bar under the Act or in any law for acquisition of land with a structure standing on it, by the State Government. On these findings the High Court allowed the two writ petitions and dismissed the other six petitions as noted earlier. It is relevant to n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 1121

Important PointOn the facts and circumstances of the case, the rejection of the request of the appellants for exclusion of their land having structures on them is arbitrary and discriminatory. Respondent-1 is directed to consider the request again in accordance with law.

Important Point
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the rejection of the request of the appellants for exclusion of their land having structures on them is arbitrary and discriminatory. Respondent-1 is directed to consider the request again in accordance with law.