Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition for Public Use, Reverses High Court Order: State of Haryana vs. Niranjan Singh (2023)

Case Background

The case revolves around land acquisition initiated by the State of Haryana in 1987 for the development of residential and commercial areas in Sector 11, Kurukshetra. The initial notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, covered 46.49 acres. Over time, a significant portion of this land was released, either by the state government or through court orders, leaving only a small fraction, including the land belonging to the original writ petitioners, under acquisition.

The original writ petitioners had sought the release of their land, arguing that they were being discriminated against since similarly situated landowners had their lands released. The State of Haryana, however, refused, stating that the remaining land was needed for public purposes such as a shopping mall, parking, road widening, and sewage lines. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana ruled in favor of the original landowners, ordering the release of their land, which led to the appeals before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The original landowners initially filed CWP No. 371/2008, which was withdrawn with liberty to file a representation before the authorities. After their representation was rejected, they filed CWP No. 16346/2013 before the High Court. Similarly, other landowners filed CWP No. 6729/2013 and CWP No. 10452/2014 after their requests for land release were denied. The High Court allowed these writ petitions, setting aside the state’s decision and ordering the release of the land, which led to the current appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

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

• Section 4: This section of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 deals with the publication of a preliminary notification for the acquisition of land for public purposes.
• Section 5A: This section of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides an opportunity for persons interested in the land to file objections to the proposed acquisition.
• Section 6: This section of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 deals with the declaration that the land is required for a public purpose.

The Supreme Court also considered the implications of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discriminatory treatment by the state.

Arguments

Arguments by the State of Haryana:

• The State argued that once land is acquired following due process under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and compensation is paid, the land vests with the government. Therefore, the High Court erred in ordering the release of acquired land.
• The State contended that other lands were released due to previous High Court orders, not by their own volition.
• Regarding CWP No. 10452/2014, the State argued that the land is already utilized for a sewage line, costing Rs. 17 crores, and releasing it would be against public interest.
• For CWP No. 6729/2013, the State asserted the land was needed for road widening.
• For CWP No. 16346/2013, the State submitted that the land was required for constructing a shopping mall and parking.

Arguments by the Original Landowners:

• The landowners argued that the State had released a major portion of the acquired land, discriminating against them by not releasing their land.
• They pointed out that out of the 46.49 acres initially notified, only a small portion remained under acquisition, with most of the land released either by the State or through court orders.
• They highlighted the case of Vipin Jindal, whose land was released after the Supreme Court noted the inconsistent stand of the State.
• They cited previous High Court judgments (CWP No. 5732/1988 and CWP No. 11377/1988) where acquisitions were quashed due to discriminatory practices by the State.
• In CWP No. 10452/2014, the landowners requested that the remaining land, after deducting the area used for sewage lines, be released.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues. However, the key issues that the court addressed were:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in directing the release of acquired land based on the argument of discriminatory treatment, given that a significant portion of the originally acquired land had already been released.
2. Whether the State was justified in refusing to release the remaining land, citing public purposes such as a shopping mall, parking, road widening, and sewage lines.
3. Whether the land which is already utilized for public purpose can be released.

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:

Judgment

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict, partially upholding and partially reversing the High Court’s decision.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Civil Appeals No. 3235-3237/2015:* The Court took note of the fact that the lands were released by the State Government upon refund of compensation.
• CWP No. 5732/1988:* The Court considered the fact that the High Court had quashed the acquisition.
• CWP No. 11377/1988:* The Court considered the fact that the High Court had quashed the acquisition due to discriminatory practices by the State.
• Vipin Jindal case:* The Court followed the principle that inconsistent stand of the State Government in releasing land should not be allowed.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Discriminatory Practices: The Court strongly criticized the State of Haryana for its arbitrary and discriminatory practices in releasing acquired land, particularly favoring influential individuals. The Court noted that the State had released large chunks of land initially to influential persons and then pursuant to orders of the High Court, which were never challenged by the State.
• Public Interest vs. Arbitrariness: While the Court acknowledged the need for public purposes, it emphasized that the State’s actions must be fair and non-discriminatory. The Court found that the State’s justification for retaining the land in CWP No. 16346/2013 for a shopping mall and parking was not a sufficient reason to deny the landowners the same treatment as others.
• Utilization of Land: The Court differentiated between the land already utilized for public purposes like sewage lines and road widening, and land intended for future development like a shopping mall. The Court upheld the acquisition for the former while allowing the release of the latter.
• Need for Consistency: The Court emphasized the need for the State to maintain a consistent approach in land acquisition and release, noting the inconsistent stand taken by the State.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court focused more on the factual aspects of the case, such as the history of land releases and the discriminatory practices of the State, while also considering the legal principles of equality and public interest.

Key Takeaways

• Discriminatory Land Release: The Supreme Court strongly condemned the State’s discriminatory practices in releasing acquired land, emphasizing that the state must act fairly and consistently.
• Public Purpose: The Court differentiated between land already utilized for public purposes (like sewage lines) and land intended for future development (like a shopping mall), upholding the acquisition for the former while allowing the release of the latter.
• Importance of Consistency: The judgment underscores the need for the State to maintain a consistent approach in land acquisition and release, avoiding arbitrary and inconsistent decisions.
• Judicial Scrutiny: The Supreme Court’s intervention highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring that the State acts fairly and transparently in land acquisition matters.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 11843/2022 (CWP No. 16346/2013) is dismissed. The Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) No. 11844/2022 (CWP No. 10452/2014), SLP (C) No. 11842/2022 (CWP No. 6729/2013) and SLP (C) No. 3980 of 2023 are allowed. The impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court in CWP Nos. 10452/2014 and 6729/2013 are quashed and set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the State cannot act in a discriminatory manner while releasing acquired lands. The State must act fairly and consistently, and cannot release lands based on favoritism. The Court also clarified that land already utilized for public purpose cannot be released. This judgment reinforces the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution in the context of land acquisition and release.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Haryana vs. Niranjan Singh (2023) highlights the importance of fair and consistent practices in land acquisition. While the Court upheld the acquisition of land already utilized for public purposes, it criticized the State’s discriminatory practices and ordered the release of land where the State’s justification was not sufficient. This case serves as a reminder that the State must act as a guardian of public interest and ensure that its actions are not arbitrary or discriminatory.