2016 Supreme(SC) 55

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.
State of Haryana – Appellant
Versus
Eros City Developers Pvt. Ltd. and others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 354 of 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 7553 of 2008) WITH Civil Appeal No. 355 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27588 of 2008)
Decided on : 19-01-2016

IMPORTANT POINT
Project for which land is acquired should be taken as a whole and must be judged whether it is in larger public interest.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 6 – Acquisition of land – Public purpose – Project for which land is acquired should be taken as a whole and must be judged whether it is in larger public interest – It cannot be split into different components and to consider whether each and every component will serve public good – A holistic approach has to be adopted in such matters – Protection of legitimate expectation does not require fulfillment of expectation where overriding public interest requires otherwise – Personal benefit must give way to public interest and doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked which would block public interest for private benefit. (Para 9)

       (B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 6 – Acquisition of land – Quashing of notification by High Court – Sustainability – High Court erred in quashing acquisition of land in question by applying doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation – Purpose i.e. for expansion and systematic development of Surajkund Tourist Complex is a public purpose – It included development of parking area adjacent to Surajkund Tourist Complex near annual Surajkund Fair – High Court is incorrect in holding that State has not acted bonafide after 1992 acquisition proceedings were dropped – Earlier proceedings were dropped in light of orders passed in M.C. Mehta’s Case in year 1996, restraining construction in the area and after modification in said order in year 1998, State took fresh decision to acquire land for public purpose and there is no illegality in the same – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court set aside. (Paras 15 and 16)

        (2008) 9 SCC 552 ; (2014) 15 SCC 410 ; (2001) 2 SCC 62 ; (2012) 11 SCC 1 ; (2004) 6 SCC 765 – Relied.

       Facts of Case:

       Present appeals assail judgment and order passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Writ Petition whereby Court has quashed notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, respectively, by State of Haryana regarding acquisition of land. High Court has further quashed Award passed by respondent No. 4 in respect of land owned by respondent No. 1 Eros City Developers Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired through above mentioned notifications.

       Findings of Court:

       In view of principle of law laid down by this Court, High Court has erred in quashing acquisition of land in question, by applying doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, in the facts of the present case. We have no hesitation in holding that purpose i.e. for expansion and systematic development of Surajkund Tourist Complex, is a public purpose. It included development of parking area adjacent to Surajkund Tourist Complex near annual Surajkund Fair. We are of the view that High Court is incorrect in holding that the State has not acted bonafide, after 1992 acquisition proceedings were dropped. It is apparent from the record that earlier proceedings were dropped in the light of orders passed in M.C. Mehta’s Case in year 1996, restraining construction in the area, and after modification in the said order in the year 1998, State took fresh decision to acquire land for public purpose and there is no illegality in the same.

       Result : Appeals allowed.