STATE OF HARYANA vs. NIRANJAN SINGH

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1347­1349 OF 2023 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 11842­11844/2022) State of Haryana & Ors.               ...Appellant(s) Versus Niranjan Singh & Ors. Etc.       …Respondent(s) With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1351 OF 2023 (@ SLP (C) No. 3980 /2023) (@ D. No. 37052/2022) J U D G M E N T M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned common judgment and order dated 09.04.2021 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 16346/2013, CWP No. 6729/2013 and CWP No. 10452/2014, by which, the Division Bench of the High Signature Not Verified Court has allowed the said writ petitions and has set aside Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2023.02.24 16:49:45 IST Reason: the action of the State in declining prayer of the original 1 writ petitioners – original land owners for release of their respective acquired land(s) and consequently, has directed to   release   their   respective   acquired   land(s)   from acquisition,   the   State   of   Haryana   and   others   have preferred   the   present   appeals.   Feeling   aggrieved   and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed in writ petition ­ CWP No. 10452/2014, the beneficiaries of the   acquisition   have   also   preferred   the   present   appeal arising out of Diary No. 37052/2022.  1.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that Civil Appeal No. 1347/2023 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11842/2022 is concerned, the same is against the impugned judgment and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   in   CWP   No. 6729/2013. Civil Appeal No. 1348/2023 arising out of SLP (C) No. 11843/2022 is concerned, the same is against the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in CWP   No.   16346/2013   and   Civil  Appeal  No.   1349/2023 arising out of SLP (C) No. 11844/2022 is concerned, the same is against the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in CWP No. 10452/2014.       2 2. For   the   sake   of   convenience,   the   facts   of   CWP   No. 16346/2013 are considered which was also considered by the High Court as a lead matter. FACTS IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.1348 /2023 ARISING OUT OF CWP NO. 16346/2013 2.1 That   the   State   of   Haryana   issued   a   notification   dated 21.04.1987 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   Act),   intending   to acquire   the   land   measuring   35.76   acres   for   the development   and   utilization   of   land   as   residential   and commercial   Sector   11,   Kurukshetra   and   the   same   was followed with declaration/notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 20.04.1988. The objections were invited from all the concerned land owners. That thereafter, the award was   pronounced   by   the   Land   Acquisition   Collector   on 12.04.1990 for the land measuring 34.61 acres only. That thereafter, a further notification was issued by the State of Haryana under Section 4 of the Act dated 11.02.2002 for acquiring the land measuring 126.30 acres for residential, commercial and institutional purposes in Sector 6 and 11, Kurukshetra. It appears that even before the issuance of 3 notification under Section 6 of the Act, the land measuring 81.91   acres   belonging   to   43   land   holders   came   to   be released, details of which shall be considered hereinbelow. That thereafter, except the original writ petitioners of CWP No. 16346/2013, rest of the lands acquired belonging to the   different   land   holders   came   to   be   released   from acquisition either by the State Government or pursuant to the   order(s)   passed   by   the   High   Court   in   various   writ petitions, the area of which amounts to 40.80 acres. The particulars of the land released with respect to the land acquired   vide   notification   dated   21.04.1987   in   tabular form are as under: ­ 

4 2.2 That thereafter, the original writ petitioners filed the writ petition before the High Court challenging the acquisition by filing CWP No. 371/2008 which came to be dismissed as   withdrawn   vide   order   dated   11.01.2008   by   granting liberty to the land owners to file a representation before the authorities concerned for redressal of their grievance. As a result of which, the original writ petitioners filed a representation   dated   22.01.2008   praying   for   release   of their acquired land on parity with the similarly situated persons   whose   land   was   released   by   the   State.   That thereafter,   after   the   second   round   of   litigation,   the representation came to be dismissed and the prayer of the original land owners to release their land from acquisition came to be rejected. The same was the subject matter of CWP No. 16346/2013 before the High Court.  2.3 Now,   so   far   as   Civil   Appeal   arising   out   of   CWP   No. 6729/2013 is concerned, the representation filed by the original   land   owners   for   release   of   their   acquired   land came to be rejected vide order dated 15.06.2012, which was the subject matter of CWP No. 6729/2013.  5 2.4 Similarly, original writ petitioner – Anita Kumari Sharma filed CWP No. 10452/2014 before the High Court rejecting their prayer to release the land from acquisition.  2.5 By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions and has set aside the orders/notifications issued by the Government and the action of the State Government in declining prayer of the writ petitioners – original land owners for release of their respective acquired land(s) being violative of Article 14 of the   Constitution   of   India   by   observing   that   the   major chunk of the land belonging to the similarly situated land owners   already   stood   released.   Consequently,   the   High Court has directed to release the land belonging to the original land owners from the acquisition.    2.6 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, the State of Haryana and others have preferred the present appeals.   3. Shri Alok Sangwan, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that as such the land in question is needed by the State and therefore, the High 6 Court has materially erred in directing to release the land in question from acquisition.  3.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Sangwan, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the State that once the lands in question   have   been   acquired   after   following   the   due procedure   required   under   the   Act   and   thereafter,   the award came to be passed and even the compensation was paid and the possession was taken over and the lands actually vested in the State Government/acquiring body. It is submitted that therefore, the High Court has materially erred   in   directing   to   release   the   acquired   lands   from acquisition.  3.2 It is further submitted by learned AAG that the High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that other lands were released by the State pursuant to the order(s) passed by the High Court in various writ petitions.  3.3 It is further submitted by learned AAG appearing on behalf of the State that so far as the land acquired with respect to CWP No. 10452/2014 is concerned, the land in question is already utilized and used for the sewage line and Rs. 17 crores have been spent in constructing the sewage line and 7 it is submitted that therefore, if the land is released, as ordered by the High Court, the same shall be against the public interest and the entire sewage line which has been constructed after spending Rs. 17 crores will have to be removed. Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on   behalf   of   the   residents   of   the   locality   has   also vehemently   submitted   that   if   the   land   in   question   is released from acquisition as ordered by the High Court in that case the sewage line already constructed will have to be removed which will be against the public interest and also against the interest of the residents of the locality.  3.4 It is further submitted that so far as the land with respect to CWP No. 6729/2013 is concerned, the same is required by the State for widening of the road and therefore, the State was justified in refusing to release the land from acquisition.  3.5 Now,   so   far   as   the   land   with   respect   to   CWP   No. 16346/2013 is concerned, it is submitted that the said land is required for constructing the shopping mall and the parking and therefore, the prayer of the original land 8 owners to release their land(s) from acquisition was rightly rejected by the authority.  3.6 Making the above submissions, it is vehemently submitted by learned AAG that the High Court has materially erred in quashing   and   setting   aside   the   orders   passed   by   the State/authority   rejecting   the   prayer   of   the   original   writ petitioners   –   land   owners   to   release   their   land(s)   from acquisition  and   the   High   Court  has   materially   erred   in directing to release the acquired land(s) in question from acquisition.          4. While   opposing   Civil   Appeal   arising   out   of   CWP   No. 16346/2013,   Shri   Neeraj   Kumar   Jain,   learned   Senior Advocate has vehemently submitted that in the present case, the State Government has released the major chunk of the land arising out of the very notification and only, small portion of  the  land belonging  to  the  original writ petitioners have not been released. He has taken us to the map showing that except the plot/land in question of the original writ petitioners and others, all other major chunk of the lands have been released from acquisition. He has vehemently submitted that out of total land approximately 9 46.49 acres for which the notification under Section 4 was issued, land measuring 10.83 acres came to be excluded at the stage of inquiry under Section 5 A. The award came to be declared with respect to the land measuring 34.61 acres only and thereafter, the land measuring 26.83 acres came to be further released after the award was passed and the land measuring 7.78 acres came to be continued under acquisition, out of which further two writ petitions are   pending   with   respect   to   the   land   measuring   4.056 acres and 1.125 acres and it is submitted that only small plot(s)   of   the   original   writ   petitioners   have   not   been released, which has already been observed and held by the High Court that the same is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.  4.1 Shri   Neeraj   Kumar   Jain,   learned   Senior   Advocate appearing   on  behalf   of   the  original  writ  petitioners   has further submitted that one Vipin Jindal whose lands was declared   under   the   same   notification,   filed   writ  petition (CWP) No. 3780/2008 before the High Court challenging the acquisition and also praying for release of the land(s) from acquisition, which came to be dismissed by the High 10 Court vide order dated 13.03.2008. It is submitted that the said Vipin Jindal filed civil appeal(s) before this Court and this Court disposed of the said civil appeal(s) by permitting the   land   owner(s)   to   file   a   representation   before   the appropriate authority of the State Government to release the land from acquisition. It is submitted that this Court has   specifically   observed   that   somewhat   inconsistent stand has been taken on the part of the State Government and if, similarly situated persons had been granted relief, the appellant therein ought to be granted similar relief. It is submitted that thereafter, land belonging to the said Vipin Jindal has been released by order dated 02.08.2016 on   the   condition   that   he   will   return   the   compensation amount   received   by   him   to   the   department   along   with interest and he will surrender the land falling in the road alignment HUDA.  4.2 Shri   Neeraj   Kumar   Jain,   learned   Senior   Advocate appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners has also taken us to the judgment and order passed by the High Court in writ petition No. 5732/1988, by which, the High Court   has   quashed   the   acquisition.   Shri   Neeraj   Kumar 11 Jain, learned Senior Advocate has also taken us to the judgment and order passed by the High Court in CWP No. 11377/1988,   by   which,   the   High   Court   quashed   the acquisition   by   observing   that   the   State   Government withdrew   from   acquisition   some   of   the   area   which belonged   to   the   then   Speaker   of   the   Haryana   Vidhan Sabha and another portion belonging to the Radha Swami Satsang, Kurukshetra. It is submitted that therefore, the High   Court   observed   that   the   decision   of   the   State Government to continue with the acquisition was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further   submitted   by   Shri   Neeraj   Kumar   Jain,   learned Senior Advocate that except small parcel/portion of the land   belonging   to   the   original   writ   petitioners   all   other major chunk of the lands/plots have been released and the land in question is not required now and therefore, there is no valid reason not to release the land(s) of the original land   owners   from   acquisition.   It   is   submitted   that therefore, the High Court has not committed any error in allowing   the   writ   petitions   and   directing   the   State   to release their lands from acquisition on the parity.  12 4.3 Shri Sachin Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners in SLP (C) No. 11844/2022 arising   out   of   CWP   No.   10452/2014,   though   is   not disputing   that   the   land   in   question   belonging   to   the original writ petitioner has already been utilized and used for sewage line, submitted that the remaining land after deducting the land already used for laying down the pipes be released.  4.4 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners in SLP (C) No. 11842/2022 arising out of CWP No. 6729/2013 has adopted the submissions made by Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned Senior Advocate.    5. Having heard Shri Alok Sangwan, learned AAG, appearing on behalf of the State and Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners   in   civil   appeal   arising   out   of   CWP   No. 16346/2013   before   the   High   Court   and   having   gone through the material on record and the manner in which the State has dealt with the acquisition proceedings and has released the lands acquired from time to time right 13 from the proceedings at the stage of Section 5 A of the Act and thereafter is highly deprecable. Earlier the lands have been released by the State Government initially in favour of the influential persons and thereafter pursuant to the various orders passed by the High Court which were never challenged   by   the   State,   it   demonstrates   the   arbitrary exercise of powers by the State in releasing the acquired lands which as such required for public purposes. At the outset, it is required to be noted that when the lands are acquired for the utilization and development as residential and commercial area to develop new sectors and that too by the urban development authority, the future need is required to be considered and the expansion in future is also required to be taken into consideration and/or bear in mind. The expansion in future in the next 20­25 years is required to be taken into consideration and/or is required to be considered when use of such a vast land for the development of the area/new sectors are required. 5.1 In the present case, it is not in dispute that large chunk of area measuring 46.49 acres was acquired as far as back on 21.04.1987. Such a large chunk of land was acquired 14 for the development and utilization of land as residential and  commercial area in Sector 11, Kurukshetra by the Haryana   Urban   Development   Authority   (HUDA).   Out   of 46.49   acres   of   land   acquired   vide   notification   under Section 4, 10.83 acres of land came to be excluded from acquisition at the stage of notification under Section 5 A. Out of remaining 35.66 acres of land, 1.05 acres of land was released between Section 6 notification and the award. Thereafter, out of remaining 34.61 acres of land, 26.83 acres   of   land   came   to   be   released   after   award   dated 12.04.1990. Therefore, the balance land remained to the extent of 7.78 acres only, out of which even at present approximately 6 acres of land acquired is under litigation. Therefore,   the   land   with   respect   to   the   original   writ petitioners of CWP No. 16346/2013 is only small plots of the land which remained. If the map produced on record is considered   except   the   present   small   portion/plot   in question, all other major chunk of the land, the particulars of which are given as above, have been released either by the   State   on   its   own   and/or   pursuant   to   the   order(s) passed by the High Court which were never challenged by 15 the State and it seems that the State was happy with the decision of the High Court directing to release the lands from acquisition. In the earlier order passed by this Court in Civil Appeals No. 3235­3237/2015 with respect to the lands acquired by the very notification, it appears that this Court took note of the release of the lands by the State Government   upon   refund   of   compensation.   This   Court took note of the fact that several land owners whose lands were   acquired   filed   writ   petitions   challenging   the notification, which writ petitions were however, withdrawn with   liberty   to   file   representations   with   the   State Government   and   thereafter,   the   representations   were answered   in   favour   of   the   writ   petitioners   by   ordering release of the land after refund of compensation. Therefore, this   Court   in   the   case   of   Vipin   Jindal   (supra)   also relegated/permitted   the   said   land   owner   to   file   a representation   by   observing   that   somewhat   inconsistent stand has been taken on the part of the Government. That thereafter,   the   representation   of   Vipin   Jindal   has   been considered favourably and his land has been released from acquisition.  16 5.2 Even from the judgment and order passed by the High Court in CWP No. 11377/1988, by which, the High Court allowed the said writ petition and quashed the acquisition with respect to some of the lands acquired by the said notification, it appears that what weighed with the High Court was after the notification under Section 6 of the Act, the   Government  withdrew  from   acquisition   some   of   the area which belonged to the then Speaker of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha and another portion belonging to the Radha Swami Satsang, Kurukshetra. 5.3 Thus, from the aforesaid, it is apparent that earlier except the land in question belonging to the writ petitioners of CWP No. 16346/2013, all other lands have been released except the small parcel/plot of the lands belonging to the original writ petitioners. Now, non­release of land is sought to   be   justified   on   the   ground   that   the   same   is   now proposed to be used as shopping mall and parking. It is required to be noted that the land in question has been acquired   in   the   year   1987   along   with   the   total   land measuring 46.49 acres, out of which, except the present 17 small parcel/part of the land, all other lands have been released and/or the acquisition with respect to same have been   quashed.   Considering   the   aforesaid   facts   and circumstances, when the High Court has allowed the writ petition   ­   CWP   No.   16346/2013   and   has   quashed   the acquisition  proceedings   and   has   directed   to  release   the land in question, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge   and/or   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   has committed any error which caused for interference of this Court. No interference of this Court is called for. However, at the cost of repetition, we deprecate the manner in which the State has dealt with the acquisition proceedings and have released the land(s) and/or permitted the acquisition to be quashed in a most arbitrary manner. The lands as such   were   acquired   for   the   residential   and   commercial development purposes which could not have been utilized and   used   for   public   purposes   and   development   of   the area/sector and the State Government by exercising the powers arbitrarily and/or in favoritism has failed to use the lands for public purposes for which the lands were acquired. The State Government is guardian of the public 18 interest   and   the   public   and   the   public   interest   was required to be considered the paramount interest rather than releasing the lands at initial stage in favour of the influential persons. The State shall take care in future and must use the lands acquired for the purpose for which the same have been acquired otherwise the object and purpose of acquiring the land will be frustrated.  5.4 Now, so far as the Civil Appeal arising out of CWP No. 10452/2014 is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that the land in question is already utilized and used for the sewage lines and approximately Rs. 17 crores have been  spent  in  constructing  sewage  lines.  Therefore,   the High Court has committed a very serious error in quashing and setting aside the acquisition with respect to the said land which is already put to use for the sewage lines which is being used for the public purpose and for the residents of the locality. If the judgment and order passed by the High Court stands in that case, the entire sewage lines will have   to   be   removed   which   has   been   constructed   after spending Rs. 17 crores and which is being used for public purpose. The submissions on behalf of the original writ 19 petitioners is that leaving aside the land which is already used for the sewage lines, the remaining land be released cannot   be   accepted.   The   part   land   cannot   be   released and/or   with   respect   to   the   part   land,   the   acquisition cannot be quashed. It is required to be noted that in the present case the acquisition has been completed including acquiring   the   land,   passing   the   award   and   payment   of compensation and the land in question is vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by   the   High   Court   in   CWP   No.   10452/2014   is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.  5.5 Similarly, so far as the Civil Appeal arising out CWP No. 6729/2013 is concerned, the representation of the original writ   petitioners   to   release   the   land   from   acquisition   is rejected   on   the   ground   that   the   land   is   required   for widening of the road. Having gone through the map, we are of the opinion that when the land in question is required by the State for widening of the road and when the entire acquisition   proceedings   have   been   concluded   including 20 declaration of the award, passing of the award and the payment of the compensation, the acquisition with respect to the said land which is required for widening of the road ought not to have been quashed and/or the same land was not   required   to   be   released.   The   State   was   absolutely justified in not releasing the said land which as such is required   for   the   widening   of   the   road.   Under   the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in CWP No. 6729/2013 deserves to be quashed and set aside.          6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 11843/2022 arising out of the impugned judgment and order passed in CWP No. 16346/2013   is   hereby   dismissed   with   the   above observations.  7. For the reasons stated above, Civil Appeals, arising out of SLP   (C)   No.   11844/2022   (arising   out   of   CWP   No. 10452/2014) and SLP (C) No. 11842/2022 (arising out of CWP No. 6729/2013) and arising out of SLP (C) No. 3980 of 2023, are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment(s) and   order(s)   passed   by   the   High   Court   in   CWP   Nos. 21 10452/2014 and 6729/2013 are hereby quashed and set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.   ………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH] NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J. FEBRUARY 24, 2023 [C.T. RAVIKUMAR] 22