Hukam Chand v. State of Haryana (SC) BS499026
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- G.S. Singhvi, H.L. Gokhale and Ranjana Prakash Desai, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 1519 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20220 of 2011) with Civil Appeal No. 1520 of 2013. (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20303 of 2011). D/d. 21.2.2013.

Hukam Chand and others - Appellants

Versus

State of Haryana and others - Respondents

For the Petitioners in SLP 20220/2011 :- Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Advocate.

For the Petitioners in SLP 20303/2011 :- Mr. Siddharth Mittal, Advoacte.

For the Respondents :- Mr. Ravindra Bana, Advocate.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 5A, 4 and 6 - Acquisition of land - No opportunity of hearing given to landowners in respect of objection raised as required under Section 5A - Order of acquisition set aside - Land Acquisition Collector subsequent developments. 2012(2) RCR (Civil) 698 : 2012(2) Recent Apex Judgment 287, relied.

[Paras 19, 21, 22 and 23]

Cases Referred :-

Anand Singh v. State of U.P., 2010(4) RCR (Civil) 32 : 2010(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 58 : (2010) 11 SCC 242.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chennai, 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 289 : (2005) 7 SCC 627.

Munshi Singh v. Union of India, (1973) 2 SCC 337.

Radhy Shyam v. State of U.P., 2011(3) RCR (Civil) 96 : 2011(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 197 : (2011) 5 SCC 553.

Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana, 2012(2) RCR (Civil) 698 : 2012(2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 287 : (2012) 1 SCC 792.

Shyam Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1993(3) R.R.R. 417 : (1993) 4 SCC 255.

Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, 2001(4) RCR (Civil) 258 : (2001) 7 SCC 545.

Union of India v. Mukesh Hans, 2004(4) RCR (Civil) 315 : (2004) 8 SCC 14.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Having failed to convince the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to quash the acquisition of their land on the grounds of violation of Section 5A(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') and discrimination, the appellants have preferred these appeals.

3. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being noticed from the record of the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 20303 of 2011.

4. Appellant-Bohru is the co-owner in possession of land comprised in Khewat No. 89, Khata No. 111, Rectangle No. 16, Killa No. 14/2 (4-12) situated in village Fazilwas, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. He constructed thereon a building consisting of 6 rooms with an open verandah, shed and courtyard. After obtaining a licence from the Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, the appellant started a flour mill under the name and style M/s. Dinesh Flour Mill.

5. By notification dated 14.12.2006 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, the Government of Haryana proposed the acquisition of land situated in seven villages, including Fazilwas, for setting up Choudhary Devi Lal Industrial Model Township. The appellant filed objections under Section 5A(1) of the Act and pleaded that his land may not be acquired because he had raised the construction, and was running a flour mill since 2005. After considering the report of the Land Acquisition Collector, the State Government issued declaration under Section 6(1), which was published vide notification dated 18.1.2008.

6. The appellant challenged the acquisition of his land in CWP No. 7424/2008. Likewise, other landowners filed writ petitions questioning the notifications issued by the State Government under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act. All the writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court as infructuous because a statement was made on behalf of the State Government that the declaration under Section 6(1) was issued beyond the time prescribed under that section and fresh notification had been issued under Section 4(1) on 25.4.2008.

7. Since the appellant's land was included in notification dated 25.4.2008, he filed detailed objections dated 9.6.2008, paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of which are extracted below:

8. The Land Acquisition Collector, who was entrusted with the task of making an inquiry under Section 5A(2), did not give opportunity of hearing to the appellant and submitted report to the State Government. In column 7 of the report, the Land Acquisition Collector noted the objections raised by the appellant in the following words:

9. After considering the report of the Land Acquisition Collector, the State Government issued declaration under Section 6(1), which was published on 9.3.2009.

10. The appellant challenged notifications dated 25.4.2008 and 9.3.2009 in Writ Petition No. 15720/2009. In paragraphs 6, 8, 9 and 11 thereof, he specifically pleaded that opportunity of hearing had not been afforded to him in terms of Section 5A. He also relied upon the instructions issued by the State Government from time to time for release of land on which construction had already been raised and pleaded that there was no justification to acquire his land. This is evinced from the following averments contained in the writ petition:

11. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it was averred that land situated in five villages was acquired for establishing integrated complex for industrial, commercial and other public utilities by the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. in the name of Choudhary Devi Lal; that major portion of the land is located along the alignment of Kundli-Manesar-Palwal Expressway; that some portion of the land is also required for construction of an interchange of the Expressway on NH-8 and that the acquisition was made after complying with the relevant provisions of the Act. However, the statement contained in the writ petition that the appellant had not been given opportunity of hearing was not specifically controverted.

12. In the writ petition filed by them, appellants Hukam Chand and others pleaded that the objections filed by them had not been properly considered and their land was not released from acquisition despite the fact that they had already raised construction. They further pleaded that the acquisition proceedings were contrary to the law laid down in Sube Singh v. State of Haryana 2001(4) RCR (Civil) 258 : (2001) 7 SCC 545 and the provisions contained in the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963. The Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the writ petitions of the appellants along with 37 other writ petitions. Some of the writ petitions were partly allowed and the remaining were dismissed. Some of the observations made in the impugned order, which depict total arbitrariness on the respondents' part in acquiring land belonging to agriculturists while leaving out land purchased by different industrial establishments and builders are extracted below:

(Reproduced from the SLP paper book. Underlining is ours)

13. At this stage, we would like to observe that the officers of the Government of Haryana who filed the written statements deliberately withheld the fact that on the recommendations made by the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Infrastructure, the acquisition proceedings were dropped in respect of 2200 acres land out of 3510 acres notified under Section 4(1) of the Act. This fact has been disclosed in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the affidavit filed by Shri R.L. Satyaprakash, Joint Secretary to Government of Haryana and Director, Industries and Commerce, Haryana. The same read as under:

(emphasis added)

14. Shri Siddharth Mittal, learned counsel appearing for appellant-Bhoru, argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside because the High Court did not consider his client's plea that the acquisition of his land was vitiated due to violation of Section 5A(2). Learned counsel further argued that the Land Acquisition Collector had submitted the report to the State Government and recommended acquisition of the appellant's land without giving him opportunity of hearing and even though this was specifically pleaded as a ground for challenging the acquisition proceedings, the High Court did not consider the same. Learned counsel further argued that the acquisition proceedings are vitiated due to wholly arbitrary and discriminatory approach adopted by the State Government. He pointed out that large parcels of land belonging to M/s. VSR Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Chinar Estates Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Hess Hospitality and other industrial establishments were left out from acquisition or release but similar action was not taken qua the appellant's land despite the fact that he had already raised construction and was running a flour mill. Learned counsel also relied upon the policy decisions taken by the State Government not to acquire land on which construction had been raised before the initiation of acquisition proceedings and submitted that the High Court committed an error by not ordering release/de-acquisition of the appellant's land.

15. Shri S.S. Shamshery, learned counsel appearing for Hukam Chand and others, adopted the arguments of Shri Mittal and submitted that the acquisition of his clients' land should be quashed on the ground of discrimination.

16. Shri Ravindra Bana, learned counsel for the respondents, fairly admitted that the averments contained in the writ petition filed by Bhoru about denial of opportunity of hearing under Section 5A(2) had not been controverted in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, but submitted that the acquisition of the appellants land may not be quashed on the ground of discrimination because there were valid reasons for releasing land belonging to M/s. VSR Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.; M/s. Chinar Estates Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Hess Hospitality, etc. Shri Bana further argued that the appeals may be dismissed because SLP(C) No. 11019/2011 filed by the State was dismissed by this Court on 27.4.2011.

17. We have considered the respective arguments and scanned the record. Section 5A, which provides for filing of objections by the landowners and other interested persons and giving of opportunity of hearing to the objectors reads as under:

18. In Munshi Singh v. Union of India (1973) 2 SCC 337, this Court interpreted the afore-mentioned provision and observed:

19. In Shyam Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar 1993(3) R.R.R. 417 : (1993) 4 SCC 255, this Court reiterated that the provisions contained in Section 5A are mandatory and compliance thereof is sine qua non before any person can be deprived of his land. Some of the observations made in that case are extracted below:

20. In Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana 2012(2) RCR (Civil) 698 : 2012(2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 287 : (2012) 1 SCC 792, the Court noticed the above noted two judgments and also the judgments in Union of India v. Mukesh Hans 2004(4) RCR (Civil) 315 : (2004) 8 SCC 14, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chennai 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 289 : (2005) 7 SCC 627, Anand Singh v. State of U.P. 2010(4) RCR (Civil) 32 : 2010(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 58 : (2010) 11 SCC 242, and Radhy Shyam v. State of U.P. 2011(3) RCR (Civil) 96 : 2011(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 197 : (2011) 5 SCC 553, and observed:

21. In view of the proposition laid down in the judgments noticed herein above, it must be held that the acquisition of the appellants' land was vitiated due to non-compliance of Section 5A(2) of the Act and the High Court committed grave error by not considering this substantive ground of challenge.

22. We also find considerable merit in the appellants' criticism of the impugned order on the ground that the High Court did not quash the acquisition proceedings despite the fact that the material produced before it clearly revealed that the respondents had resorted to discrimination in acquiring some parcels of land, while leaving out other similar parcels of land. However, we do not consider it necessary to finally pronounce on this issue because we intend to direct Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon to comply with the mandate of Section 5A(2) and submit a fresh report by considering the objections filed by the appellants and giving them reasonable opportunity of hearing.

23. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned order is set aside insofar as it relates to the appellants' lands. Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon is directed to give notice and opportunity of hearing to the appellants, consider the objections already filed by them, take into consideration the developments which have taken place after filing of the writ petition, including the release of 2200 acres land on the recommendation of the Cabinet Sub-Committee and submit a fresh report to the State Government under Section 5A(2) briefly indicating the reasons for his recommendations. The State Government shall objectively consider the recommendations of the Land Acquisition Collector along with the objections filed by the appellants and decide whether or not the appellants' land needs to be acquired. If the State Government comes to the conclusion that the appellants' land is needed for the specified public purpose, then it may issue fresh declaration under Section 6(1).

24. It is needless to say that if the appellants feel aggrieved by the declaration issued by the State Government, they shall be free to avail appropriate legal remedy.

.