Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. Thakur, R. Banumathi, JJ.
State of Haryana - Appellant
Vs.
Vinod Oil and General Mills - Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 9098-9099 of 2014
Decided On: 23.09.2014
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 – Acquisition of Land – Claim compensation – Acquittal - Learned Counsel further submitted that at time of planning of sector it was noticed that land in dispute was creating hindrance in development of sector and High Court did not properly appreciate hindrance that is being caused by land for development of sector as residential and commercial sector High Court quashed acquisition proceedings interlay on grounds: (i) having permitted change of land use for developing the area as an industry and after cannot turn around and acquire land for development of residential and commercial purposes lands having been released from earlier acquisition in 1992 cannot be included in notification for re-acquisition – Held, Since new Land Acquisition Act has come into force with effect High Court did not have occasion to examine whether proceedings already initiated under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have lapsed on account of alleged non-payment of compensation to Respondents and failure of authorities to take over possession of land acquired from them - Having regard to submission of learned Counsel for Respondents certain factual aspects viz., whether possession of land in Chars has been taken or not whether compensation in respect of acquired land in was paid or not have to be examined – Court are of view that instead of this Court examining above issues by itself it would be better if matter is remitted back to High Court to examine above limited questions in respect of acquisition of land Maria in - In result court uphold order passed by High Court quashing acquisition of land 19 Maria in - So far as acquisition of land measuring order of High Court is set aside and it is held that acquisition proceedings have been properly concluded in respect of said extent of land acquired in and matter is remitted to High Court to examine limited questions as aforesaid – Court further direct that status quo as it exists today in regard to disputed property shall be maintained by parties pending disposal of writ petition – Court restore on file of High Court In result court uphold the order passed by the High Court quashing the acquisition of land - So far as the acquisition of land measuring order of High Court is set aside and it is held that acquisition proceedings have been properly concluded in respect of said extent of land acquired in and matter is remitted to High Court to examine the limited questions as aforesaid - Court further direct that the status quo as it exists today in regard to disputed property shall be maintained by the parties pending disposal of writ petition court restore Haryana and Ors on file of the High Court - Since the writ petition is of court request High Court to dispose of same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from date of receipt of copy of this judgment appeals stand disposed of accordingly - In facts and circumstances of case no order as to costs – Appeal disposed of
JUDGMENT :
R. Banumathi, J.
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of the judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in and by which the High Court quashed the acquisition of the lands of the Respondents, inter alia, on various grounds. Feeling aggrieved, State of Haryana is before us.
3. Facts in nutshell giving rise to these appeals are as under: The Respondents being a partnership concern had set up an industrial unit in the year 1981 which is running under the name and style of M/s. Vinod Oil and General Mills. On 19.5.1992, Haryana Government issued a notification Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'Act') in which the land of the Respondents was also included. The Respondents submitted their objections Under Section 5A of the Act and after considering their objections, the State Government excluded the land of the Respondents from the acquisition proceedings before declaration Under Section 6 of the Act. Later at the time of planning of the Sector, it was felt that two strips of lands of the Respondents are creating hindrance in the wholesome Development Plan of the Sector. Haryana Government again initiated acquisition proceedings by issuance of notification Under Section 4 of the Act on 15.3.2004 to acquire the land in the area of village Hissar Hadbast No. 146 and village Satrod Khas and Satrod Khurd Hadbast Nos. 154 & 155, Tehsil and District Hissar including the lands of the Respondents for public purpose, namely, for development and utilization of land for residential and commercial Sector 9 & 11, Hissar. The Respondents filed their objections Under Section 5A of the Act and after hearing the Respondents, the Government decided to acquire the land in dispute and the declaration Under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 14.3.2005 and thereafter notice Under Section 9 of the Act was also issued. Challenging the acquisition proceedings, the partnership concern filed two writ petitions one by Savitri Devi, one of the partners (CWP No. 17469/2006) and the another by M/s. Vinod Oil and General Mills, a registered partnership firm through Shri Inder Sain Aggarwal (CWP No. 17458/2006) praying to quash the notifications dated 15.3.2004 and 14.3.2005 Under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and also prayed for direction to release their land from acquisition proceedings.
4. The High Court quashed the acquisition proceedings, interalia, on the grounds: (i) having permitted the change of land use for developing the area as an industry and after 26 years cannot turn around and acquire the land for development of residential and commercial purposes; (ii) lands having been released from earlier acquisition in 1992 cannot be included in the notification for re-acquisition; (iii) the land of the Respondents being located in one of the corners of the sector that is proposed to be developed, the same could be conveniently adjusted in the Plan/Scheme.
5. Mr. Narendra Hooda, learned Addl. Advocate General, appearing for the State of Haryana, submitted that the development and utilization of land for residential and commercial purpose in Sector 9 & 11, Hissar will benefit many people and the High Court erred in not appreciating that the interest of the individuals could not come in the way of development plan. Learned Counsel further submitted that at the time of planning of sector, it was noticed that the land in dispute was creating hindrance in development of the sector and the High Court did not properly appreciate the hindrance that is being caused by the land, for the development of the sector as residential and commercial sector. It was submitted that the release of the land from acquisition in the earlier notification in 1992 would not in any way bar fresh acquisition of the same land.
6. Mr. Puneet Jindal, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents/claimants submitted that when the Respondents' lands were earlier sought to be acquired, upon consideration of objections by the Responden
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
