Back
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya)
Raghbir Singh Sehrawat - Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others - Respondent(s)
Decided on: November 23, 2011.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10080-10081 OF 2011
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 12042-12043 of 2011)
(a) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 16 – Taking possession – Crops standing on the land on the day when award was declared – Possession could not be taken without notice to the appellant – It was humanly impossible to give notice to large number of persons on the same day and take actual possession of land comprised in various survey numbers – Held, possession was not taken – Record prepared by authorities has no legal sanctity. (Para 19, 20)
(1976) 1 SCC 700; (2011) 5 SCC 394; (1996) 4 SCC 212; (2005) 12 SCC 489; (2009) 8 SCC 339; (2009) 10 SCC 501 – Relied upon
(1996) 11 SCC 501; (1997) 2 SCC 627; (1996) 11 SCC 698; (2000) 2 SCC 48; (2008) 4 SCC 695(2008) 4 SCC 695 – Distinguished
(b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 5A – Principles of natural justice are engrained in the provision – No notice was served on the appellant and his wife – Their signatures forged on the notice claimed to have been served – Wife shown as his widow – Proceeding conducted without noticing and hearing the appellant – Acquisition vitiated. (Para 25)
(1973) 2 SCC 337; (1980) 2 SCC 471; (1993) 4 SCC 255; (2004) 8 SCC 14; (2005) 7 SCC 627; 2010 AIR SCW 5152; Radhy Shyam v. State of U. P. – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The appellant purchased 8 Kanals 4 Marlas land in village Jatheri, District Sonepat in 1984 and is cultivating the same. In June 2006 it was proposed to acquire his land along with others’.
He filed objection u/s 5A(1) of the Act. and pleaded that his land may not be acquired because the same was being used for agricultural purposes and was the only source of income for his family.
He challenged the acquisition by filing a writ petition which was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained
Result: Appeal allowed with cost.
JUDGMENT
G.S. SINGHVI, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. More than 16 decades ago, John Stuart Mill wrote: "land differs from other elements of production, labour and capital in not being susceptible to infinite increase. Its extent is limited and the extent of the more productive kinds of it more limited still. It is also evident that the quantity of produce capable of being raised on any given piece of land is not indefinite. These limited quantities of land, and limited productiveness of it, are the real limits to the increase of production".
4. In 1947, the first Prime Minister of India Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru said "everything else can wait, but not agriculture". In its fifth and final report, the National Commission on Farmers headed by Dr. M.S. Swaminathan observed that prime farmland must be conserved for agriculture and should not be diverted for non- agricultural purposes, else it would seriously affect availability of food in the country where 60% population still depends on agriculture and people living below poverty line are finding it difficult to survive.
5. Unfortunately, these words of wisdom appear to have become irrelevant for the State apparatus which has used the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') in last two decades for massive acquisition of the agricultural land in different parts of the country, which has not only adversely impacted the farmers, but also generated huge litigation adjudication consumes substantial time of the Courts. These appeals filed against orders dated 17.5.2010 and 19.11.2010 of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court is one of many such cases which the landowners are compelled to file with the hope that by Court's intervention they will be able to save their land.
6. The appellant purchased 8 Kanals 4 Marlas land in village Jatheri, District Sonepat in 1984 and is cultivating the same. He claims to have constructed a boundary wall and is growing different crops. His land is surrounded by agricultural fields, factories and residential houses. In the south of his land, there is a canal and a school.
7. By Notification dated 22.6.2006 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, the Government of Haryana proposed the acquisition of 3813 Kanals 17 Marlas (476 Acres 5 Kanals 17 Marlas) land situated at villages Badhmalik, Badkhalsa, Jatheri, Liwan, Pritampura and Rai, Tehsil and District Sonepat for the development of Industrial Sector 38, Sonepat. The appellant filed objections under Section 5A(1) and pleaded that his land may not be acquired because the same was being used for agricultural purposes and was the only source of income for his family. The other landowners also submitted their respective objections. District Revenue Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Collector, Sonepat (for short, 'the Land Acquisition Collector') is said to have heard the objectors on 29.10.2006 and made recommendations for the acquisition of some parcels of land and for release of some other parcels of land specified in Notification dated 22.6.2006. Thereafter, the State Government issued declaration under Section 6 (1), which was notified on 20.6.2007 for the acquisition of 216 Acres 7 Kanals and 11 Marlas land. As a sequel to this, the Land Acquisition Collector passed award dated 28.11.2008.
8. The appellant challenged the acquisition of his land in Writ Petition No.8441 of 2009 on several grounds including the following:
(i) that the notification issued under Section 4(1) had not been published as per the requirement of the statute,
(ii) that he was not given opportunity of hearing in terms of Section 5A(2),
(iii) that land of large number of persons had been excluded from acquisition at the stage of Section 6 declaration but his land was not released and, in this manner, he had been discriminated,
(iv) that there was no justification to acquire his land, which was the only source of livelihood for him and his family,
(v) that he was not served with notice in terms of Section
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
