Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
JAIPAL SINGH & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/08/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCALE (6)321
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
Notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (for short, the ’Act) was published on January 23,
1990 acquiring a large extent of the land for urbanization
and commercial purpose in Sectors No.4A and 6 of Daruhera
and Malpura Village in District Rewari. The respondents
challenged the validity of the notification in the High
Court on two grounds. Firstly, that there was a policy of
the Government to exclude from acquisition the lands on
which buildings have been constructed and secondly, the
respondents had constructed shops before notification under
Section 4(1) was published and, therefore, their land is
liable to be excluded from the notification. The High Court
in the impugned order made in Writ Petition No 6804/91 on
February 11, 1992 recorded a finding that the respondents
had constructed the shops prior to the issue of the
notification. There was general policy to exclude from
acquisition the built-in areas. Therefore, it was held that
they are liable to be excluded. The notification was
quashed.
We have repeatedly held in several judgments that there
is no general policy as such that all the lands on which
construction has come to be made are required to be deleted
from the acquisition. But it was admitted across the Bar
that a decision was taken not to acquire the A.B.C.D. land.
The respondents placed on record the proceedings of the
Director, Department of Urban Estate, Haryana in the letter
dated February 12, 1992 wherein it was stated that the
Government had decided to release the land to the west of
line marked A.B.C.D. Ok the Shajra Plan sent to the Land
Acquisition Officer. Accordingly, direction was given to the
Land Acquisition Officer to take action to delete such of
those lands within that area and submit a detailed report in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
that behalf.
When we enquired from the counsel for the respondents
to point out after locating the lands whether they are
situated within the A.B.C.D. line marked on the Shajra Bhan,
the learned counsel with difficulty sought to place before
us the identification and localisation of the land. But on
the basis of scant material on record, we think that it
would be hazardous for us to conclude whether or not the
lands are existing within the aforesaid demarked Shajra
Plan. Appropriate course would be that the respondents
should make an application before the Secretary to
Government, Haryana, Urban Estate Department, Haryana Civil
Secretariat. Chandigarh within a period of weeks from today
giving the details of the location, whereat the lands are
factually existing. The Secretary would have an enquiry made
through either the Urban Estates Department or Land
Acquisition Officer, as the case may be, or any appropriate
authority, to localise and identify the existence of the
lands in question belonging to the respondents. If the lands
in fact are situated within the area to the west of A.B.C.D.
line of Shajra Plan, as mentioned in the said letter, it
would be obvious that in the light of the decision of the
Government, the lands are required to be released from
acquisition.
In case the Secretary found that the lands are situated
outside the A.B.C.D. line of Shajra Plan, an enquiry has
necessarily got to be made as to when these 14 shops came to
be constructed by the respondents. If the shops were
constructed prior to the publication of the impugned
notification under Section 4(1), necessarily compensation
has to be determined in accordance with the provisions of
subsection (1) of Section 23. In case the construction came
to be made after the notification under Section 4(1),
necessarily they cannot claim any compensation.
The first appellant is directed to dispose of the
matter within a period of two months thereafter. The
respondents are at liberty to place all the documents before
the first appellant for consideration.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of with the above
modification and direction out in the circumstances without
costs