Supreme Court Orders Re-examination of Land Acquisition in Haryana: Krishan Chander vs. State of Haryana (2019)

Date of the Judgment: September 17, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 907
Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and A.S. Bopanna, J.
Can a High Court dismiss a land acquisition case without examining the relevant records, especially when there are claims of unutilized land and procedural irregularities? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case, emphasizing the need for a thorough judicial review in such matters. The case revolves around a land acquisition dispute in Haryana, where the appellants claimed that their land was acquired but not utilized for the intended public purpose. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, set aside the High Court’s order and directed a fresh consideration of the case. Justice A.S. Bopanna authored the judgment.

Case Background

The appellants’ father owned land in Village Para, District Rohtak. This land, along with other properties, was acquired by the State of Haryana for the development of Sector 36, Rohtak. The initial notification for acquisition was issued on 15.12.2006 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act). A final declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act was made on 14.12.2007.

The appellants contended that their land was not used for the stated purpose. They also claimed that while some lands acquired for the same purpose were released from acquisition, their land was not. Initially, the appellants approached the High Court through CWP No. 5836 of 2014. The High Court directed the authorities to verify the appellants’ claim and consider releasing the land if it was not needed for public use, subject to the refund of any compensation received.

Following this, the Secretary-cum-Director General, Urban Estates Department, Haryana, rejected the appellants’ claim on 10.11.2014. The appellants then filed another writ petition, CWP No. 22656 of 2015, challenging the rejection order. This petition was dismissed by the High Court, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Key provisions include:

• Section 4: This section of the L.A. Act deals with the publication of a preliminary notification for the acquisition of land for public purposes.
• Section 6: This section of the L.A. Act deals with the declaration of intended acquisition after considering objections under Section 5A.
• Section 5A: This section of the L.A. Act provides the right to file objections against the proposed acquisition.
• Section 48: This section of the L.A. Act allows for the withdrawal from acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken.

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

• The appellants argued that their land was not utilized for the intended public purpose, and a substantial portion of the acquired land remained unused.
• They contended that they were still in possession of the land, as evidenced by revenue records and photographs.
• They claimed that similar lands acquired for the same purpose were released, and their land should also be released on the grounds of parity.
• The appellants asserted that they had filed objections under Section 5A of the L.A. Act, contrary to the respondents’ claim.
• The appellants contended that the Panchnama drawn for taking possession was not at the spot.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents argued that the land was required for the layout plan of Sector 36, specifically for institutional plots, green belts, and parking areas.
• They stated that the appellants did not file objections under Section 5A of the L.A. Act, making them ineligible for consideration under the policy for the release of land.
• The respondents claimed that possession of the land was taken on 09.12.2009, as recorded in the ‘Rapat Roznamcha’.
• They relied on decisions in Sita Ram Bhandar Society, New Delhi vs. Lieutenant Governor, Government of NCT, Delhi & Ors. [(2009) 10 SCC 501], M. Venkatesh vs. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority [(2015) 17 SCC 1] and Indore Development Authority vs. Shailendra [(2018) 3 SCC 412] to support their claim that possession was validly taken.
• The respondents argued that once land is acquired, it cannot be restored even if not used, citing V. Chandra Sekaran and Anr. vs. Administrative Officer & Ors. [2012 (12) SCC 133].
• The respondents contended that the appellants had entered into a collaboration agreement with M/s Sharad Farm and Holdings (P) Ltd. after the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition at the threshold without examining the records related to the land acquisition and possession.
2. Whether the High Court should have considered the appellants’ claim for release of land on the grounds of parity with other landowners whose lands were released.
3. Whether the High Court should have examined the validity of the possession of the land by the authorities.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On the Mode of Taking Possession:

• Sita Ram Bhandar Society, New Delhi vs. Lieutenant Governor, Government of NCT, Delhi & Ors. [(2009) 10 SCC 501] – Supreme Court of India. The Court considered this case to understand the approved mode of taking possession by drawing a Panchnama.
• M. Venkatesh vs. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority [(2015) 17 SCC 1] – Supreme Court of India. The Court considered this case to understand the approved mode of taking possession by drawing a Panchnama.
• Indore Development Authority vs. Shailendra [(2018) 3 SCC 412] – Supreme Court of India. The Court considered this case to understand the approved mode of taking possession by drawing a Panchnama.
• Banda Development Authority, Banda vs. Moti Lal Agarwal and Ors. [2011 (5) SCC 394] – Supreme Court of India. The Court considered this case to understand the importance of drawing the Panchnama at the spot.

On Restoration of Land After Acquisition:

• V. Chandra Sekaran and Anr. vs. Administrative Officer & Ors. [2012 (12) SCC 133] – Supreme Court of India. The Court considered this case to understand that land once acquired cannot be restored even if not used, but noted that this case was in a different context.

On Similar Consideration for Landowners:

• Patasi Devi Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [(2012) 9 SCC 503] – Supreme Court of India. The Court considered this case where the Court had directed the release of land in a similar layout.
• Hari Ram & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [(2010) 3 SCC 621] – Supreme Court of India. The Court considered this case to understand that similar land owners should receive similar consideration when representation is made for deletion.

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – The Court considered this provision which deals with the notification of land acquisition.
• Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – The Court considered this provision which deals with the right to file objections against the proposed acquisition.
• Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – The Court considered this provision which deals with the declaration of intended acquisition.
• Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – The Court considered this provision which allows for the withdrawal from acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The cases of Sita Ram Bhandar Society, New Delhi vs. Lieutenant Governor, Government of NCT, Delhi & Ors. [(2009) 10 SCC 501], M. Venkatesh vs. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority [(2015) 17 SCC 1] and Indore Development Authority vs. Shailendra [(2018) 3 SCC 412] were cited by the respondents to support their claim of valid possession. However, the court did not give a finding on this and said that the High Court should examine the records.
• The case of V. Chandra Sekaran and Anr. vs. Administrative Officer & Ors. [2012 (12) SCC 133] was distinguished by the Court as it was in a different factual context.
• The case of Banda Development Authority, Banda vs. Moti Lal Agarwal and Ors. [2011 (5) SCC 394] was considered by the Court to highlight the importance of drawing the Panchnama at the spot.
• The cases of Patasi Devi Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [(2012) 9 SCC 503] and Hari Ram & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [(2010) 3 SCC 621] were cited by the appellants to support their claim for similar consideration. The Court agreed that the High Court should have considered these cases.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The High Court’s failure to examine the records related to land acquisition and possession.
• The need to verify the validity of the possession claimed by the authorities.
• The principle of parity, requiring similar treatment for similarly situated landowners.
• The fact that the land was lying vacant as per the authorities’ own admission.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was a blend of factual analysis and legal principles. The Court emphasized the importance of examining the factual aspects of the case, such as the possession of land, the layout plan, and the status of similar lands. The legal principles of natural justice and parity were also central to the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the High Court was correct in dismissing the writ petition at the threshold. However, it rejected this interpretation because the High Court had not examined the records, which was necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court also noted that the impugned order was passed pursuant to an earlier direction by the High Court, which further necessitated a deeper examination of the matter.

The Supreme Court’s decision was that the High Court should have examined the records related to the land acquisition and possession, and should have considered the appellants’ claim for release of land on the grounds of parity. The Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed a fresh consideration of the case.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that a High Court, in a certiorari proceeding, should secure the records and consider whether the possession had been validly taken. The Court also emphasized the need to ensure that similarly situated landowners receive similar consideration, as per the policy for the release of land. The Court observed that the High Court had not undertaken this exercise, which was necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

“At the outset, it is necessary to take note that the writ petition was dismissed at the threshold without directing notice to the respondents and considering the grievance of the appellants in the backdrop of the contention urged.”

“In that background a perusal of the order dated 10.11.2014 impugned in the present writ petition bearing CWP.No.22656/2015 would disclose that the competent authority has noted that as per the fresh site survey, the land of the appellants is lying vacant.”

“Having taken note of all the above aspects, the fact of the possession actually having been taken would require determination at the outset based on examination of records.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The bench comprised two judges, and the judgment was authored by Justice A.S. Bopanna.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must conduct a thorough examination of records in land acquisition cases, especially when claims of unutilized land and procedural irregularities are made.
• The principle of parity requires that similarly situated landowners should receive similar consideration for the release of land.
• The validity of possession claimed by the authorities must be verified by examining the relevant records.
• The mere fact that land is acquired does not automatically mean that it cannot be restored if it is not utilized for the intended public purpose.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the writ petition to the file of the High Court for fresh consideration. The High Court was directed to afford sufficient opportunity to both parties, secure the records, and dispose of the writ petition in accordance with the law.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts must conduct a thorough examination of records in land acquisition cases, especially when claims of unutilized land and procedural irregularities are made. This case also reiterates the principle of parity, requiring similar treatment for similarly situated landowners. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but the Court has clarified the procedure to be followed by the High Court in such cases.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Krishan Chander vs. State of Haryana emphasizes the importance of a thorough judicial review in land acquisition cases. The Court set aside the High Court’s order, directing a fresh consideration of the case, highlighting the need to examine the records, verify the validity of possession, and ensure that similarly situated landowners receive similar consideration. This judgment underscores the principle of fairness and accountability in land acquisition proceedings.