2004 Supreme(SC) 1564

2005(1) Supreme 861
Supreme Court of India
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Shivaraj V. Patil & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ.
M/s. Anand Buttons Ltd. etc. —Appellants
versus
State of Haryana & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5591 of 1999
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 5592, 5593, 5594, 5595, 5596 and 5597 of 1999
Decided on 10-12-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : T.R. Andhyarujina, Bhimrao, N. Naik, Sr. Advocates, S.V. Deshpande, Sudhanshu Batra, Anuradha Rustagi, Neeraj Kumar Jain, Advocate for Ms. Kavita Wadia, Ravindra Bana and Prem Malhotra, Advocates.

Important point
As to whether in a given set of circumstances certain land should be exempted from acquisition is a matter of policy, and not of law.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4, 5A and 6—Acquisition proceedings for setting up industrial unit—Challenged as vitiated by discrimination and arbitrariness—Notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of 93 kanals of land including lands of appellants—Objections—Acquisition of land except in three cases—Lands of three industrial units were exempted from acquisition—Lands of all the present appellants were included in the declaration under Section 6 for acquisition—Appellants had raised objections under Section 5A alleging that each of them had been persuaded to gift 3 kanals of land to the Gram Panchayat for increasing width of the passage with an understanding that they will be granted permission to change user of land—Appellants objected to the acquisition on ground that they were desirous of setting up an industrial unit—Whether the Court could sit in appeal over the exercise of satisfaction by the authority—(No)—Authority who has to carry out the planned development of the industrial estate is in the best position to judge as to which land can be exempted from the acquisition.

       Held : The High Court has carefully considered and evaluated the contentions urged by the petitioners-appellants in the light of the material placed before it. The High Court noticed that the cases of all the seven units were examined and recommended for exemption from acquisition by the Land Acquisition Collector, who was of the view that, each one of the units had taken considerable steps towards establishment of an industrial unit. The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Sonepat, after examining the individual cases, reported that the facts found in the report of the Land Acquisition Collector were correct, but made no recommendation with regard to the acquisition proceedings. He reported : “all the parties have been heard in person except the representative of M/s Anand Buttons Ltd., who did not turn up for verification of the facts on the given date.” The General Manager, District Industries Centre pointed out: “all the parties have expressed their desire to set up an industry on this land within a period of two years, if released. But none of them has so far taken up a tangible step on the land. The land of all these parties put together, is surrounded by Industrial Area already existing at HSIDC, Kundli. These parties have also stated that they would not sell the plot further but will themselves set up an industry on it.” In the case of M/s Kundli Agro Pvt. Ltd., however, he suggested that its case deserves a “sympathetical attitude”, in view of the land of 3 Kanals and 11 Marlas gifted by it for making a path way. Finally, it was reported, “keeping all these things in view, the Headquarter may take a suitable action.” (Para 8)

       The authority, who has to carry out the planned development of the industrial estate, is in the best position to judge as to which land can be exempted from the acquisition without jeopardizing the development scheme. It is not possible for the court to sit in appeal over the exercise of such satisfaction by the authority vested with the task of implementing the development plan. (Para 11)

       It is trite law that not only land but also structure on land can be acquired under the Act. As to whether in a given set of circumstances certain land should be exempted from acquisition only for the reason that some construction had been carried out, is a matter of policy, and not of law. If after considering all the circumstances, the State Government has taken the view that exemption of the lands of the appellants would render askew the development scheme of the industrial estate, it is not possible for the High Court or this Court to interfere with the satisfaction of the concerned authorities. We see no ground on which the appellants could have maintained that their lands should be exempted from acquisition. Even if three of the parties had been wrongly exempted from acquisition, that gives no right to the appellants to seek similar relief. (Para 13)

       It is rightly pointed out by the High Court that, merely because a representation was made by the Director, Town and Country Planning, that upon gift of certain land to the Gram Panchayat for widening of the passage, permission for change of user of land would be granted, such a promise is not one capable of being enforced against the State Government. The High Court has rightly pointed out that, if the appellants are so desirous, they may seek invalidation of the gifts in favour of the Gram Panchayat on the ground of failure of the Director, Town and Country Planning to fulfil his commitment. That, however, does not render the acquisition proceedings illegal. (Para 14)