SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.
VINOD KUMAR – APPELLANT
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 973-974 OF 2014 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NOS. 14383-14384 OF 2012)
Decided On : 28-01-2014
Facts of the Case- A.A Notification was issued herein in the instant case for Acquisition of land of appellant for public purpose. Inspite of Objection thereagainst u/s 5A appellants land was acquired. Writ petition thereagainst by appellant was dismissed by High Court.
B. Present Appeals have been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court-The Supreme Court held that government has to consider the report of the Land Acquisition Collector while making declaration of acquisition of land under Section 6 of the Act. If the government is coming to a conclusion which is contrary to the report, then the government has to provide appropriate reason for the same. Declaration made by Government for acquisition of land of appellant under Section 6 of the Act not provided any reason for arriving at a decision contrary to that of the report produced by Land Acquisition Collector. Hence basic protection to which landowners were entitled to under the Act through Section 5A was violated. Process of acquisition of the land of appellant being tainted with mala-fide , same was liable to be set aside. Impugned acquisition notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act in relation to appellant's land and the action taken thereon were quashed. The impugned judgment and orders of High Court were set aside. Appeals were allowed.
Result - Appeals allowed
JUDGMENT
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are filed by the appellant questioning the correctness of the judgment and final Order dated 05.04.2011 passed in C.W.P. No. 7746 of 2009 and order dated 16.12.2011 passed in Review Application No. 388 of 2011 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, urging various facts and legal contentions in justification of his claim.
3. Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of the appellant and also to find out whether the appellant is entitled for the relief as prayed in this appeal.
The appellant is the owner of 5 Kanals 6 Marlas of land out of which 934 square yards have been left out of acquisition. On 07.02.2008, under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, the Haryana Urban Development Authority issued a notice for acquisition of land including that of the appellant for public purpose namely, for the development and utilization of the land as residential and commercial purposes. The notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ‘the Act’) and the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Faridabad, Haryana was authorized to issue public notice on the substance of notification at convenient places in the locality. He was also authorized to survey upon the land and take necessary action regarding the same. The appellant filed a detailed objection under Section 5A of the Act categorically stating that the appellant has raised an A Class construction on the concerned area in the year 1999-2000 and therefore, inclusion of the land for the purpose of acquisition is not justified. In the meanwhile, on 10.03.2008, the said land was released by the Authority in favour of Ritwiz Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. However, on 15.09.2008, the Land Acquisition Collector considered the objection filed by the appellant under Section 5A of the Act and as per his report, exempted the land of the appellant from acquisition since there was already a residential building on the land on the date of the notification. In spite of the report produced by the Land Acquisition Collector, the Haryana Urban Development Authority vide notification dated 06.02.2009 made a declaration that the appellant’s land is to be acquired for the development of residential and commercial Sector Nos. 76,77 and 78 for which the notification was initially issued on 07.02.2008.
4. It is the case of the appellant that while issuing the notification under Section 6 of the Act, the property adjoining to the land of the appellant, which belongs to one M/s. Harpreet Food, was released. Though the respondent Authority has released a portion of the appellant’s property, some part of the built-up and constructed portion of the house was not released.
5. The appellant therefore, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana registered as Writ Petition No. 7746 of 2009, challenging the acquisition of his land by the Authority. The said petition got tagged along with other similar petitions filed by different affected parties and the Writ Petition No. 7711 of 2009, titled New Vidya Niketan Educational Society Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. was made the lead case.
6. The High Court, after hearing both the parties concluded that in all the writ petitions, construction was raised in an unauthorized manner without getting any permission either under the provisions of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 or under the relevant Municipal laws. Even then in some cases, relief was granted by releasing some portion of the land under construction and ordering acquisition of vacant land. The action taken by the Authority was held perfectly justified. The Review Application No. 388 of 2011 filed by the appellant against dismissal of his C.W.P. No. 7746 of 2009 was also dismissed on 16.12.2011. Hence, these appeals.
7. The l
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.