1. Land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Challenge to notifications under Sections 4 and 6 — Objections under Section 5A regarding authorized constructions. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 950
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Haryana Urban Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Abhishek Gupta etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 7420-7421 of 2010
Decided on : 21-10-2024
The court established that compliance with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act is mandatory, but the government's final decision on land acquisition is subject to judicial review if found arbitrary.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 5A, 6 - The court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 5A, ensuring landowners' objections are duly considered, and clarified that the government has the final authority in acquisition decisions, which can be challenged if arbitrary.
Fact of the Case:
The Haryana Urban Development Authority appealed against a High Court ruling that quashed land acquisition notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, citing improper consideration of objections and discriminatory treatment compared to other landowners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the objections under Section 5A were adequately considered, and the government's decision to proceed with acquisition was justified based on a High-Powered Committee's findings, dismissing claims of discrimination.
Issues: The court addressed whether the procedure under Section 5A was followed, if the acquisition was discriminatory, if the appeals were infructuous due to subsequent developments, and the applicability of the doctrine of merger.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the government has the discretion to disagree with the Collector's recommendations under Section 5A, and the decision to acquire land can be upheld if it serves public interest, despite claims of prior authorization of constructions.
Result: The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside, affirming the land acquisition.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Validity of Section 5A proceedings — Binding nature of Collector's recommendations — Allegations of discriminatory acquisition under Article 14 — Maintainability based on the doctrine of merger. (Para 9 , 10 )
3. Government's decision under Section 5A is final regardless of Collector's recommendation — Public interest overrides private construction authorizations — Arbitrary release of prime land violates public trust. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 )
4. The appropriate Government is the final arbiter under Section 5A of the 1894 Act; Collector's recommendations are not binding on the State. (Para 16 , 17 )
5. Appeals allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Acquisition upheld — Directions for passing awards and taking possession of land. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 )
6. Is the Collector's recommendation under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, binding on the appropriate Government?
No. The Collector only makes recommendations. The statute explicitly states that the decision of the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final. The Government can independently evaluate the report and disagree with the Collector's recommendation. (Para 16 , 17 )
7. Does the existence of authorized constructions on land prevent its acquisition by the State?
No. Exempting land with constructions is a matter of State policy, not law. Public interest overrides individual interests, and the power of eminent domain allows acquisition even if constructions were previously authorized by the government. (Para 25 , 26 )
8. Can a landowner claim that their land should be exempted from acquisition because similarly situated land was exempted?
Generally, no. Article 14 cannot be used to claim negative equality—seeking an illicit benefit just because another received an undue favor—especially if it undermines the contiguity and purpose of the acquisition. (Para 30 )
9. Does the doctrine of merger absolutely bar the court from hearing an appeal if previous appeals on the same judgment were dismissed?
Not absolutely. While merger typically occurs when appeals are dismissed after leave is granted, the court can invoke Article 142 of the Constitution to carve out an exception to do complete justice. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 )
10. Can the State Government whimsically release land from acquisition during pending litigation?
No. The power to release land must be exercised for lawful considerations and not arbitrarily or selectively. Decisions lacking application of mind or ignoring public interest and contiguity are manifestly arbitrary. (Para 42 , 43 )
JUDGMENT :
SURYA KANT, J.
1. These appeals have been preferred by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA, now HSVP) (hereinafter, ‘Appellant’) against the judgement dated 15.07.2008 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (hereinafter, ‘High Court’), whereby the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State of Haryana annulled by quashing the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, ‘1894 Act’).
A. FACTS
2. A notification was issued on 16.03.1999 under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act for acquiring 952.18 acres land, of which 748.56 acres fall in Village Saketri and 203.62 acres in Village Bhainsa Tiba, both in Tehsil and District Panchkula, Haryana. The land was being acquired for development and utilization for residential, commercial, institutional and recreational purposes.
3. Located between the Union Territory of Chandigarh and the Shivalik Range, the lands are bordered on one side by the Sukhna Lake, and a designated Forest Area on the other. It is also adjacent to several other residential sectors that the Appellant has fully developed as part of the Mansa Devi Complex in the Panchkula Urban Area.
4. The Respondents submitted their objections under Section 5A of the 1894 Act on 16.04.1999, contending that their portion of the land under acquisition ought to be exempted as they contained fruit trees and the state policy mandates the exemption of such lands from acquisition. Additionally, they claimed that a cattle- shed, greenhouse, and an attendant room were also erected on the land, for which authorization had been granted by the Commissioner, Ambala, on 23.12.1992 under the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 (hereinafter, ‘Punjab Periphery Act’). Similarly, a farmhouse was also claimed to have been constructed with the approval of the Additional District Judge, Ambala, (hereinafter, ‘ADJ’) vide judgement dated 05.04.1994.
5. The Collector accepted these objections, noting that since the Commissioner and the ADJ had authorized the construction on the land, it could be exempted from acquisition. However, the State Government went ahead with the acquisition, asserting that the structures were unauthorized. A declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued on 16.03.2000 to acquire both the land and the constructions thereon.
6. Aggrieved, the Respondents approached the High Court, pleading that their objections under Section 5A of the 1894 Act had not been appropriately considered.
7. Subsequently, vide the impugned judgement dated 15.07.2008, the High Court allowed the Respondents’ writ petition and quashed the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act. This finding stood on two primary legs: (i) the Respondents’ objections were wrongfully rejected as the constructions were duly authorized; and (ii) it was discriminatory to acquire the Respondents’ land when similarly situated land belonging to Maharaja Harinder Singh ‘Khalaf’ Maharaja Varinder Singh had been exempted from acquisition.
8. Discontented with the quashing of the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act, the Appellant—beneficiary of the acquisition, is before us in these appeals. This Court, vide order dated 01.09.2008, directed the parties to maintain status quo which is operating till date.
B. CONTENTIONS
9. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Learned Senior Additional Advocate General of Haryana, appearing on behalf of the Appellant— beneficiary of the acquisition contended that the High Court erred in quashing the aforementioned notifications. In support of this assertion, he made the following submissions:
(a) The constructions undertaken by the Respondents were unauthorized. Although permission was granted by the Commissioner, Ambala, it was conditioned on the Respondents submitting the building plan. However, there is no evidence substantiating that such a plan was ever submitted. Hence it cannot be presumed that the construction was duly authorized, and consequen
