Rameshwar vs State of Haryana - 2022 Supreme(SC) 673

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 673

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
Rameshwar & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
Miscellaneous Application No. 50 of 2019 in Civil Appeal No. 8788 of 2015 with Diary No(S). 26552 of 2019, MA 2150 of 2020 in C.A. No. 8788 of 2015, MA 2149 of 2020 in C.A. No. 8788 of 2015, Conmt. Pet.(C) No. 2226 of 2018 in C.A. No. 8788 of 2015, MA 1175 of 2019 in C.A. No. 8788 of 2015, Diary No(S). 24553 of 2019, Diary No(S). 45026 of 2019, SLP(C) No. 5490 of 2021, Diary No(S). 7888 of 2020, Conmt. Pet. (C) No. 513 of 2020 in C.A. No. 8788 of 2015, MA 1521 of 2020 in C.A. No. 8788 of 2015, MA 2067 of 2020 in C.A. No. 8788 of 2015, MA 2228 of 2020 in C.A. No. 8788 of 2015, SLP(C) No. 2147 of 2021, Diary No(S). 5699 of 2021, Diary No(S). 7775 of 2021, Diary No(S). 9505 of 2021, Diary No(S). 6705 of 2022, Diary No(S). 9002 of 2022, M.A. No. 864 of 2019, Diary No. 45009 of 2019. and Conmt. Pet. (C) No. 716 of 2021 in MA 50 of 2019 in C.A. No. 8788 of 2015
Decided On : 21-07-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Parijat Kishore, AOR Mr. Siddhant Buxy, AOR Mr. Devashish Bharuka, AOR Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Adv. Mr. Paban K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anchit Sripat, Adv. Mr. Pranab Kumar Nayak, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, AOR Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Batra, AOR Ms. Shivani Chawla, Adv. Mr. Brijender Chahar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Jyoti Chahar, Adv. Mr. Karan Chahar, Adv. Ms. Pooja Chahar, Adv. Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Vinay Garg, AOR Mr. Randeep Singh Rai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ayush Shrivastava, Adv. Ms. Rubina Virmani, Av. Mr. Rituraj Singh, Adv. Mr. Shivendra Singh, AOR Mr. Anil Grover, Sr. AAG Mr. Anjay Bansal, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Mr. Rahul Khurana, Adv. Ms. Noopur Singhal, Adv. Mr. Alok Sangwan, Sr. AAG Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anurag Kulharia, Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR Ms. Gunjan Sinha Jain, Adv. Mr. Miteesh Charan, Adv. Mr. Pranam Jain, Adv. Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR Mr. Somesh Arora, Adv. Mr. Aviral Kashyap, AOR Mr. Vimal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Shish Pal Laler, Adv. Mr. Atul, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aayush, Adv. Mr. Vedant Pradhan, Adv. Mr. Vikram Singh Jakhar, Adv. Mr. Ravi Panwar, AOR Mr. Pulkit Deora, Adv. Mr. Udit Gupta, Adv. Mr. Anup Jain, Adv. Mr. Akshay Goel, Adv. Mr. Vyom Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Harsh Gurbani, Adv. Ms. Prache Gupta, Adv. Mr. Naman Joshi, Adv. Mr. Guneet Sidhu, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Francis, Adv. Ms. Manisha Ambwani, AOR Mr. Siddharth Batra, AOR Ms. Shivani Chawla, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Dubey, Adv. Mr. Anurag Ojha, Adv. Mr. Karan Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Shubhangi Tuli, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Pragya Baghel, AOR Mr. Nitin Bhardwaj, AOR Mr. Ankur Bansal, AOR Ms. Rashi Bansal, AOR Mr. Aditya Verma, AOR Mr. Gaurav Goel, AOR Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Avadh Bihari Kaushik, AOR Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav, AOR Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR M/s. Karanjawala & Co., AOR Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan, AOR Ms. Shally Bhasin, AOR Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, AOR Mr. Amarjeet Singh, AOR Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, AOR Mr. S. S. Jauhar, AOR Mr. Ramendra Mohan Patnaik, AOR Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 and 6 - Principles of mala fide exercise of power, fraud on power in the context of land acquisition and developer agreements - The Court invalidated the decision of the State of Haryana dated 29.01.2010, which withdrew the acquisition of lands following an earlier notification under Section 4. The Court found that such withdrawal was mala fide, causing landowners to part with property at undervalued rates, thereby benefiting private interests. Important conditions from the main judgment were reiterated, ensuring that the parties involved should not benefit from actions taken during the suspect period (27.08.2004 to 29.01.2010). Specifically, the collaboration agreements entered during this period were deemed to constitute 'transfer', invalidating sales that took place within that timeframe. The Court ordered various payments to be made by developers due to the invalidation of agreements found to align with fraudulent activities, emphasizing the need for equitable resolution regarding consumer rights and interests. (Paras 1-121)

(B) Legal Principles - The definition of transfer under the deemed award was expanded to include not just conveyance but all substantive agreements that transferred significant developmental rights during the suspect period, thus necessitating a broader application of rights to affected landowners. (Paras 38, 121)

Table of Content
1. clarification of previous judgment on land acquisition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. nature of 'transfer' in land acquisition context. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. consequences of fraudulent land transfers. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. collaboration agreements and development rights discussed. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. compensation frameworks in specified scenarios. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
6. distinction for bona fide landowners or purchasers. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
7. challenges in verifying land ownership claims. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
8. standards for allottees in commercial developments. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
9. final observations affecting future rights and obligations. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
10. instructions for hsiidc and land management. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)

JUDGMENT

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

INDEX

Background
I. Applications filed by:
(a) M/s. Paradise Systems Pvt. Ltd.
(b) M/s. Karma Lakelands Pvt. Ltd.
(c) Frontier Home Developers Pvt. Ltd
(d) Analysis and conclusion of I (a) (b) and (c)
II. Applications filed by:
(a) M/s. R.P. Estates Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Subros Ltd
III. Applications filed by:
(a) Express Greens / DLF Home Developer Ltd.
IV. Applications filed by:
(a) M/s Kalinga Realtors Pvt. Ltd.
V. ABW Infrastructure Ltd.
VI. Applications filed by:
(a) Speed Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.
VII. Applications pertaining to Innovative Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd.:
(a) Legend Height Owners Welfare Association
(b) Paramveer Distributors Pvt. Ltd
(c) Analysis of VII (a) and (b)
VIII. Applications filed by:
(a) Dharamvir & Ors..
IX. Other issues
Conclusion

Background

1. The present judgment will dispose of various applications filed by the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (hereinafter, “HSIIDC”) and others, by way of clarifications sought on the judgment delivered by this Court in Rameshwar v. State of Haryana, (2018) 6 SCC 215 (hereinafter, “main judgment”).

2. The main judgment of this Court had, after duly considering the sequence of facts and developments which occurred after publication of the notification under Section 4 of the (now repealed) LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter, “Acquisition Act”) on 27.08.2004, read with the final decision of the State of Haryana (hereinafter, “State”) dated 29.01.2010 to not proceed with the said acquisition, declared as mala fide and inoperative the decision dated 29.01.2010. The Court's reasoning was that the State, in principle, had decided to withdraw from the acquisition after the notification under Section 4 , which was followed by the declaration under Section 6 and the receipt of objections from the concerned lands owners etc., even when the matter was posted for publication of the award on 26.08.2007. In the interim period, land owners, alarmed by the prospect of losing their holdings, were induced to sell or otherwise transfer their lands to colonizers / developers at significantly lower rates of compensation. Most of such colonizers / developers had entered into collaboration agreements after the notification under Section 4 , sought (and were granted) licenses by the Department of Town and Country Planning of the State of Haryana (hereinafter, “DTCP”). This Court found that upon an overall consideration of the materials (which included relevant official notings in government files, ministerial decisions and notifications), the state machinery was used to further private ends. The Court held that such a decision to withdraw from acquisition was a fraud on power under the Acquisition Act. Therefore, the judgment invalidated all transfers effected from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 , to the date of publication of the State's decision to revoke the acquisition i.e., from 27.08.2004 to 29.01.2010 (hereinafter, “suspect period”).

3. Apa