Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ravi Shanker Jha, Arun Palli, JJ.
Laxmi Educational Society, Manesar & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP No. 2734 of 2007 (O&M)
Decided On : 29-07-2022
Permission for change of land use/licence/NOC/any other permission granted once, would grant immunity to the said land for all times to come, from its acquisition by the State under the applicable Land Acquisition Act (In the present case, it is land Acquisition Act 1894), even if it is required for the "Public Purpose"?
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners have questioned the acquisition of their land in question measuring 63k 17M, interalia, on the grounds:- (i) having granted the permission to set up the school and the NOC being issued to set up the B.Ed. college and afterwards State cannot turn around and acquire the land for development of Industrial Model township to be developed as an Integrated complex for industrial, residential, recreational and other public utilities; (ii) the land in question though vacant but being reserved for future expansion will prejudice the future prospects of the educational institution especially when the claim of planning/developing agency is that the land in question interferes merely in the proposed vehicle testing track which as per the petitioner does not constitute any public purpose and thus, same can be conveniently adjusted in the plan; (iii) recommendations having been made by the land Acquisition Collector u/s 5A of the 1894 Act to release the land, the State cannot proceed to acquire the said land; (iv) Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by referring to certain releases made by the State and setting up the plea of hostile discrimination on the part of the State.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that permission for change of land use/licence/NOC/any other permission granted once, would not grant immunity to the said land for all times to come, from its acquisition by the State under the applicable Land Acquisition Act, even if it is required for the "Public Purpose". The court further held that the definition of public purpose is not capable of being given a static and definite definition. The state is the first judge to decide the "public purpose" for which the land is required to be used, though such decision is subject to judicial scrutiny. The land in question is required for development of industrial infrastructure which constitutes "public purpose". It can be utilized for any allied or connected or even other public purpose for its optimum utilization. The vague pleas that the use of the land is not for public purpose are not sufficient to question the validity of the acquisition proceedings. Since long time has lapsed from the date of acquisition, even if due to change in the planning, if the land in question is sought to be utilised for any other public purpose, there would no impediment for the acquiring agency to proceed with the same in view of the settled proposition of law.
Issues: 1. Whether the permission for change of land use/licence/NOC/any other permission granted once, would grant immunity to the said land for all times to come, from its acquisition by the State under the applicable Land Acquisition Act (In the present case, it is land Acquisition Act 1894), even if it is required for the "Public Purpose"? 2. Whether the land in question though vacant but being reserved for future expansion and may prejudice the future prospectus of the educational institution especially when the claim of planning/developing agency is that the land in question interferes merely in the proposed vehicle testing track which as per the petitioner doesn't constitute any public purpose and thus, the same can be conveniently adjusted in the plan, could be a relevant consideration while deciding the validity of acquisition proceedings? 3. Whether recommendations having been made by the land Acquisition Collector u/s 5A of the 1894 Act to release the land, the State cannot proceed to acquire the said land especially when the beneficiary department is of the view that any such release made will affect the planning done to achieve the public purpose, for which, the land is being sought to be acquired? 4. Whether the petitioners have made out a case of discrimination within the Ambit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by referring to certain releases made by the State and setting up the plea of hostile discrimination on the part of the State? 5) Whether the land in question has been vested in the State with the recording of Rapat Roznamcha and the status of landowner has become of a "trespasser" as held by the Hon'ble Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Indore Development Authority Supra), the parameters on which, the writ court shall interfere in the acquisition proceedings at the instance of a "trespasser"?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the permission for change of land use/licence/NOC/any other permission granted once, would not grant immunity to the said land for all times to come, from its acquisition by the State under the applicable Land Acquisition Act, even if it is required for the "Public Purpose". The court further held that the definition of public purpose is not capable of being given a static and definite definition. The state is the first judge to decide the "public purpose" for which the land is required to be used, though such decision is subject to judicial scrutiny. The land in question is required for development of industrial infrastructure which constitutes "public purpose". It can be utilized for any allied or connected or even other public purpose for its optimum utilization. The vague pleas that the use of the land is not for public purpose are not sufficient to question the validity of the acquisition proceedings. Since long time has lapsed from the date of acquisition, even if due to change in the planning, if the land in question is sought to be utilised for any other public purpose, there would no impediment for the acquiring agency to proceed with the same in view of the settled proposition of law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition.
JUDGMENT
Ravi Shanker Jha, C.J. - Whether the permission for change of land use/licence/NOC/any other permission granted once, would grant immunity to the said land for all times to come, from its acquisition by the State under the applicable Land Acquisition Act (In the present case, it is land Acquisition Act 1894), even if it is required for the "Public Purpose", is the question posed before us to answer in the instant civil writ petition.
2. The genesis of the instant case lies in the era of Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as 1894 Act) which is commonly known as "era of compulsory acquisition" whose basic foundation was "public interest" which was given supremacy on "private interest". It is well known facet of law that when so ever conflict arises between "public interest and private interest", the private interest has to make way for public interest and that is how, the 1894 Act contributed to the development of this country. The 1894 Act was in itself a complete code and had prescribed the procedure so as to raise grievance against the action of the State Government to acquire someone's land and when so ever Courts found any deviation of State/its authorities from settled procedure, the interference has been made so as to come to the rescue of such land owners. Applying the said settled principles to the factual matrix of the present case, where, the land was acquired for setting up of the Industrial Model Township wherein the land in question was not released by the State Govt. on the recommendation of developing agency i.e. HSIIDC as it was seriously affecting the planning of IMT vis-a- vis the case put forth by the petitioner of granting it the NOC to set up the college and land in question (vacant 63K 17M), the question arises is as to whether, the action of the State Govt to acquire the land in question, can be termed to be unreasonable, as being sought to be contended by the petitioner? We find ourselves to agree the same as if we are to hold that once permission is granted/NOC is granted for setting up of college and thereafter, State cannot acquire it for all time to come, this may lead to an anomalous situation which may not be in the larger public interest and would amount to "public interest" making way for "private interest" which is not permissible at any costs/under any circumstances.
3. The petitioners have questioned the acquisition of their land in question measuring 63k 17M, interalia, on the grounds:- (i) having granted the permission to set up the school and the NOC being issued to set up the B.Ed. college and afterwards State cannot turn around and acquire the land for development of Industrial Model township to be developed as an Integrated complex for industrial, residential, recreational and other public utilities; (ii) the land in question though vacant but being reserved for future expansion will prejudice the future prospects of the educational institution especially when the claim of planning/developing agency is that the land in question interferes merely in the proposed vehicle testing track which as per the petitioner does not constitute any public purpose and thus, same can be conveniently adjusted in the plan; (iii) recommendations having been made by the land Acquisition Collector u/s 5A of the 1894 Act to release the land, the State cannot proceed to acquire the said land; (iv) Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by referring to certain releases made by the State and setting up the plea of hostile discrimination on the part of the State.
4. Certain elemental facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved in the instant writ petition are required to be considered first. The petitioners have laid challenge to the acquisition proceedings initiated vide the notifications dated 25.11.2005 and 24.11.2006 issued u/s 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act respectively; followed by the Award u/s 11 of the 1894 Act dated 24.02.2007, thereby acquiring land for th
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acquisition proceedings would not lapse even if the award was passed after the prescribed period under Section 11A, and the relocation pol....
The public purpose of developmental activities outweighs private individual interests in land acquisition cases.
Once land is vested in the government after acquisition, it cannot be returned to the original owners, even if not utilized for the intended purpose.
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
