STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. versus NIRANJAN SINGH & ORS. ETC on 24 February 2023

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonjudgment and order dated 09.04.2021 passed by the High Court of Punjaband Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 16346/2013, CWP No. 6729/2013 and CWP No. 10452/2014, by which, the Division Bench of theHigh Court has allowed the said writ petitions and has set aside theaction of the State in declining prayer of the original writ petitioners –original land owners for release of their respective acquired land(s) and A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Aconsequently, has directed to release their respective acquired land(s)from acquisition, the State of Haryana and others have preferred thepresent appeals. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugnedjudgment and order passed in writ petition - CWP No. 10452/2014, thebeneficiaries of the acquisition have also preferred the present appealarising out of Diary No. 37052/2022.B

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, thesame is against the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt in CWP No. 6729/2013. Civil Appeal No. 1348/2023 arising out ofSLP (C) No. 11843/2022 is concerned, the same is against the impugnedCjudgment and order passed by the High Court in CWP No. 16346/2013and Civil Appeal No. 1349/2023 arising out of SLP (C) No. 11844/2022is concerned, the same is against the impugned judgment and order passedby the High Court in CWP No. 10452/2014.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of CWP No. 16346/D2013 are considered which was also considered by the High Court as alead matter.

FACTS IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.1348 /2023 ARISING OUTOF CWP NO. 16346/2013

E2.1 That the State of Haryana issued a notification dated 21.04.1987under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referredto as the Act), intending to acquire the land measuring 35.76 acres forthe development and utilization of land as residential and commercialSector 11, Kurukshetra and the same was followed with declaration/notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 20.04.1988. The objectionsFwere invited from all the concerned land owners. That thereafter, theaward was pronounced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 12.04.1990for the land measuring 34.61 acres only. That thereafter, a furthernotification was issued by the State of Haryana under Section 4 of theAct dated 11.02.2002 for acquiring the land measuring 126.30 acres forGresidential, commercial and institutional purposes in Sector 6 and 11,Kurukshetra. It appears that even before the issuance ofnotificationunder Section 6 of the Act, the land measuring 81.91 acres belonging to43 land holders came to be released, details of which shall be consideredhereinbelow. That thereafter, except the original writ petitioners of CWPNo. 16346/2013, rest of the lands acquired belonging to the different H

land holders came to be released from acquisition either by the StateGovernment or pursuant to the order(s) passed by the High Court invarious writ petitions, the area of which amounts to 40.80 acres. Theparticulars of the land released with respect to the land acquired videnotification dated 21.04.1987 in tabular form are as under: -

2.2 That thereafter, the original writ petitioners filed the writ petitionbefore the High Court challenging the acquisition by filing CWP No.371/2008 which came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated11.01.2008 by granting liberty to the land owners to file a representationbefore the authorities concerned for redressal of their grievance. As aresult of which, the original writ petitioners filed a representation dated22.01.2008 praying for release of their acquired land on parity with thesimilarly situated persons whose land was released by the State. Thatthereafter, after the second round of litigation, the representation cameto be dismissed and the prayer of the original land owners to releasetheir land from acquisition came to be rejected. The same was the subjectmatter 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 ownersfor release of their acquired land came to be rejected vide order dated15.06.2012, which was the subject matter of CWP No. 6729/2013.

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A2.4 Similarly, original writ petitioner – Anita Kumari Sharma filedCWP No. 10452/2014 before the High Court rejecting their prayer torelease the land from acquisition.

2.5 By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Courthas allowed the said writ petitions and has set aside the orders/notificationsBissued by the Government and the action of the State Government indeclining prayer of the writ petitioners – original land owners for releaseof their respective acquired land(s) being violative of Article 14 of theConstitution of India by observing that the major chunk of the landbelonging to the similarly situated land owners already stood released.Consequently, the High Court has directed to release the land belongingCto the original land owners from the acquisition.

2.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonjudgment and order passed by the High Court, the State of Haryana andothers have preferred the present appeals.D3. Shri Alok Sangwan, learned AAG appearing on behalf of theState has vehemently submitted that as such the land in question is neededby the State and therefore, the High Court has materially erred in directingto release the land in question from acquisition.

3.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Sangwan, learned AAGEappearing on behalf of the State that once the lands in question havebeen acquired after following the due procedure required under the Actand thereafter, the award came to be passed and even the compensationwas paid and the possession was taken over and the lands actually vestedin the State Government/acquiring body. It is submitted that therefore,the High Court has materially erred in directing to release the acquiredFlands from acquisition.

3.2 It is further submitted by learned AAG that the High Courthas not properly appreciated the fact that other lands were released bythe State pursuant to the order(s) passed by the High Court in variouswrit petitions.G

3.3 It is further submitted by learned AAG appearing on behalf ofthe State that so far as the land acquired with respect to CWP No.10452/2014 is concerned, the land in question is already utilized andused for the sewage line and Rs. 17 crores have been spent inconstructing the sewage line and it is submitted that therefore, if the land H

is released, as ordered by the High Court, the same shall be against thepublic interest and the entire sewage line which has been constructedafter spending Rs. 17 crores will have to be removed. Shri Gaurav Agrawal,learned counsel appearing on behalf of the residents of the locality hasalso vehemently submitted that if the land in question is released fromacquisition as ordered by the High Court in that case the sewage linealready constructed will have to be removed which will be against thepublic 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 toCWP No. 6729/2013 is concerned, the same is required by the State forwidening of the road and therefore, the State was justified in refusing torelease the land from acquisition.

3.5 Now, so far as the land with respect to CWP No. 16346/2013is concerned, it is submitted that the said land is required for constructingthe shopping mall and the parking and therefore, the prayer of the originalland owners to release their land(s) from acquisition was rightly rejectedby the authority.

3.6 Making the above submissions, it is vehemently submitted bylearned AAG that the High Court has materially erred in quashing andsetting aside the orders passed by the State/authority rejecting the prayerof the original writ petitioners – land owners to release their land(s)from acquisition and the High Court has materially erred in directing torelease 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 vehementlysubmitted that in the present case, the State Government has releasedthe major chunk of the land arising out of the very notification and only,small portion of the land belonging to the original writ petitioners havenot been released. He has taken us to the map showing that except theplot/land in question of the original writ petitioners and others, all othermajor chunk of the lands have been released from acquisition. He hasvehemently submitted that out of total land approximately 46.49 acresfor which the notification under Section 4 was issued, land measuring10.83 acres came to be excluded at the stage of inquiry under Section 5A. The award came to be declared with respect to the land measuring34.61 acres only and thereafter, the land measuring 26.83 acres came tobe further released after the award was passed and the land measuring A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A7.78 acres came to be continued under acquisition, out of which furthertwo writ petitions are pending with respect to the land measuring 4.056acres and 1.125 acres and it is submitted that only small plot(s) of theoriginal writ petitioners have not been released, which has already beenobserved and held by the High Court that the same is discriminatory andviolative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.B

4.1 Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned Senior Advocate appearingon behalf of the original writ petitioners has further submitted that oneVipin Jindal whose lands was declared under the same notification, filedwrit petition (CWP) No. 3780/2008 before the High Court challengingthe acquisition and also praying for release of the land(s) from acquisition,Cwhich came to be dismissed by the High Court vide order dated13.03.2008. 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) bypermitting the land owner(s) to file a representation before the appropriateauthority of the State Government to release the land from acquisition.DIt is submitted that this Court has specifically observed that somewhatinconsistent stand has been taken on the part of the State Governmentand if, similarly situated persons had been granted relief, the appellanttherein ought to be granted similar relief. It is submitted that thereafter,land belonging to the said Vipin Jindal has been released by order dated02.08.2016 on the condition that he will return the compensation amountEreceived by him to the department along with interest and he will surrenderthe land falling in the road alignment HUDA.

4.2 Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned Senior Advocate appearingon behalf of the original writ petitioners has also taken us to the judgmentand order passed by the High Court in writ petition No. 5732/1988, byFwhich, the High Court has quashed the acquisition. Shri Neeraj KumarJain, learned Senior Advocate has also taken us to the judgment andorder passed by the High Court in CWP No. 11377/1988, by which, theHigh Court quashed the acquisition by observing that the StateGovernment withdrew from acquisition some of the area which belongedGto the then Speaker of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha and another portionbelonging to the Radha Swami Satsang, Kurukshetra. It is submittedthat therefore, the High Court observed that the decision of the StateGovernment to continue with the acquisition was arbitrary and violativeof Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted by ShriNeeraj Kumar Jain, learned Senior Advocate that except small parcel/H

portion of the land belonging to the original writ petitioners all other majorchunk of the lands/plots have been released and the land in question isnot required now and therefore, there is no valid reason not to releasethe land(s) of the original land owners from acquisition. It is submittedthat therefore, the High Court has not committed any error in allowingthe writ petitions and directing the State to release their lands fromacquisition on the parity.

4.3 Shri Sachin Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of theoriginal writ petitioners in SLP (C) No. 11844/2022 arising out of CWPNo. 10452/2014, though is not disputing that the land in question belongingto the original writ petitioner has already been utilized and used for sewageline, submitted that the remaining land after deducting the land alreadyused for laying down the pipes be released.

4.4 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original writpetitioners 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 onbehalf of the State and Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned Senior Advocate,appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners in civil appeal arisingout of CWP No. 16346/2013 before the High Court and having gonethrough the material on record and the manner in which the State hasdealt with the acquisition proceedings and has released the lands acquiredfrom time to time right from the proceedings at the stage of Section 5 Aof the Act and thereafter is highly deprecable. Earlier the lands havebeen released by the State Government initially in favour of the influentialpersons and thereafter pursuant to the various orders passed by theHigh Court which were never challenged by the State, it demonstratesthe arbitrary exercise of powers by the State in releasing the acquiredlands which as such required for public purposes. At the outset, it isrequired to be noted that when the lands are acquired for the utilizationand development as residential and commercial area to develop newsectors and that too by the urban development authority, the future needis required to be considered and the expansion in future is also requiredto be taken into consideration and/or bear in mind. The expansion infuture in the next 20-25 years is required to be taken into considerationand/or is required to be considered when use of such a vast land for thedevelopment of the area/new sectors are required.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A5.1 In the present case, it is not in dispute that large chunk of areameasuring 46.49 acres was acquired as far as back on 21.04.1987. Sucha large chunk of land was acquired for the development and utilizationof land as residential and commercial area in Sector 11, Kurukshetra bythe Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). Out of 46.49 acresof land acquired vide notification under Section 4, 10.83 acres of landBcame to be excluded from acquisition at the stage of notification underSection 5 A. Out of remaining 35.66 acres of land, 1.05 acres of landwas released between Section 6 notification and the award. Thereafter,out of remaining 34.61 acres of land, 26.83 acres of land came to bereleased after award dated 12.04.1990. Therefore, the balance landCremained to the extent of 7.78 acres only, out of which even at presentapproximately 6 acres of land acquired is under litigation. Therefore, theland with respect to the original writ petitioners of CWP No. 16346/2013is only small plots of the land which remained. If the map produced onrecord is considered except the present small portion/plot in question, allother major chunk of the land, the particulars of which are given asDabove, have been released either by the State on its own and/or pursuantto the order(s) passed by the High Court which were never challengedby the State and it seems that the State was happy with the decision ofthe High Court directing to release the lands from acquisition. In theearlier order passed by this Court in Civil Appeals No. 3235-3237/2015Ewith respect to the lands acquired by the very notification, it appearsthat this Court took note of the release of the lands by the StateGovernment upon refund of compensation. This Court took note of thefact that several land owners whose lands were acquired filed writpetitions challenging the notification, which writ petitions were however,withdrawn with liberty to file representations with the State GovernmentFand thereafter, the representations were answered in favour of the writpetitioners 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 thatsomewhat inconsistent stand has been taken on the part of theGGovernment. That thereafter, the representation of Vipin Jindal has beenconsidered favourably and his land has been released from acquisition.

5.2 Even from the judgment and order passed by the High Courtin CWP No. 11377/1988, by which, the High Court allowed the said writpetition and quashed the acquisition with respect to some of the landsH

acquired by the said notification, it appears that what weighed with theHigh Court was after the notification under Section 6 of the Act, theGovernment withdrew from acquisition some of the area which belongedto the then Speaker of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha and another portionbelonging to the Radha Swami Satsang, Kurukshetra.

5.3 Thus, from the aforesaid, it is apparent that earlier except theland in question belonging to the writ petitioners of CWP No. 16346/2013, all other lands have been released except the small parcel/plot ofthe lands belonging to the original writ petitioners. Now, non-release ofland is sought to be justified on the ground that the same is now proposedto be used as shopping mall and parking. It is required to be noted thatthe land in question has been acquired in the year 1987 along with thetotal land measuring 46.49 acres, out of which, except the present smallparcel/part of the land, all other lands have been released and/or theacquisition with respect to same have been quashed. Considering theaforesaid facts and circumstances, when the High Court has allowedthe writ petition - CWP No. 16346/2013 and has quashed the acquisitionproceedings and has directed to release the land in question, it cannot besaid that the learned Single Judge and/or Division Bench of the HighCourt has committed any error which caused for interference of thisCourt. No interference of this Court is called for. However, at the costof repetition, we deprecate the manner in which the State has dealt withthe acquisition proceedings and have released the land(s) and/or permittedthe acquisition to be quashed in a most arbitrary manner. The lands assuch were acquired for the residential and commercial developmentpurposes which could not have been utilized and used for public purposesand development of the area/sector and the State Government byexercising the powers arbitrarily and/or in favoritism has failed to usethe lands for public purposes for which the lands were acquired. TheState Government is guardian of the public interest and the public andthe public interest was required to be considered the paramount interestrather than releasing the lands at initial stage in favour of the influentialpersons. The State shall take care in future and must use the landsacquired for the purpose for which the same have been acquired otherwisethe 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 inquestion is already utilized and used for the sewage lines and A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aapproximately Rs. 17 crores have been spent in constructing sewagelines. Therefore, the High Court has committed a very serious error inquashing and setting aside the acquisition with respect to the said landwhich is already put to use for the sewage lines which is being used forthe public purpose and for the residents of the locality. If the judgmentand order passed by the High Court stands in that case, the entire sewageBlines will have to be removed which has been constructed after spendingRs. 17 crores and which is being used for public purpose. The submissionson behalf of the original writ petitioners is that leaving aside the landwhich is already used for the sewage lines, the remaining land be releasedcannot be accepted. The part land cannot be released and/or with respectCto the part land, the acquisition cannot be quashed. It is required to benoted that in the present case the acquisition has been completed includingacquiring the land, passing the award and payment of compensation andthe land in question is vested in the State Government free from allencumbrances. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment andorder passed by the High Court in CWP No. 10452/2014 is unsustainableDand 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 torelease the land from acquisition is rejected on the ground that the landis required for widening of the road. Having gone through the map, weEare of the opinion that when the land in question is required by the Statefor widening of the road and when the entire acquisition proceedingshave been concluded including declaration of the award, passing of theaward and the payment of the compensation, the acquisition with respectto the said land which is required for widening of the road ought not to Fhave 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 assuch 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.G6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, CivilAppeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 11843/2022 arising out of the impugnedjudgment and order passed in CWP No. 16346/2013 is hereby dismissedwith the above observations.

7. For the reasons stated above, Civil Appeals, arising out of SLPH(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 ofSLP (C) No. 3980 of 2023, are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment(s)and order(s) passed by the High Court in CWP Nos. 10452/2014 and6729/2013 are hereby quashed and set aside. In the facts andcircumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.

Nidhi Jain

Appeals disposed of.

(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh and Shashwat Jain, LCRAs)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H