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

Date of the Judgment: 24 February 2023

Citation: (2023) INSC 140

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can a state government selectively release acquired land, favoring some landowners while denying the same benefit to others? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning land acquisition in Haryana. This judgment clarifies the extent to which the state can differentiate between landowners when releasing acquired land, particularly when a significant portion of the originally acquired land has already been released. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, with the majority opinion authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case revolves around land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State of Haryana in 1987 for the development of residential and commercial areas in Sector 11, Kurukshetra. Initially, 46.49 acres were intended for acquisition. Over time, a significant portion of this land was released, either by the state government or through court orders, leaving only a small portion, including the land owned by the original writ petitioners, under acquisition. The original landowners sought release of their lands on the grounds of parity, arguing that they were similarly situated to those whose lands had already been released. The State rejected their claim.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The original landowners initially filed a writ petition (CWP No. 371/2008) before the High Court, which was later withdrawn with the liberty to file a representation before the authorities. After their representation was rejected, they filed another writ petition (CWP No. 16346/2013). Similarly, other landowners filed CWP No. 6729/2013 and CWP No. 10452/2014, all challenging the rejection of their requests for land release. The High Court allowed these writ petitions, setting aside the state’s decision and ordering the release of the land. The State of Haryana and the beneficiaries of the acquisition then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Specifically, the following sections are relevant:

• Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section deals with the publication of a preliminary notification for the acquisition of land. “Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette…”
• Section 6, Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section concerns the declaration of intended acquisition after considering objections under Section 5A. “Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, when the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under section 5A, sub-section (2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorized to certify its orders…”

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 the land was needed for public purposes, including a shopping mall, parking, road widening, and sewage lines.
• The State contended that the High Court erred in directing the release of land after the acquisition process was completed, awards were passed, compensation paid, and possession taken.
• The State submitted that other lands were released due to court orders, not by the State’s own volition.
• The State argued that the land in CWP No. 10452/2014 was already utilized for a sewage line, and releasing it would be against public interest.

Arguments by the Original Landowners:

• The landowners argued that the State had released a major portion of the acquired land, and their land should also be released on the grounds of parity.
• They pointed out that the State had released land belonging to influential persons and others, indicating a discriminatory approach.
• They highlighted that similar cases, such as that of Vipin Jindal, were favorably considered by the Supreme Court, leading to the release of their land.
• The landowners in CWP No. 10452/2014 argued that even if the land was used for sewage lines, the remaining portion of their land should be released.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues addressed by the court were:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in directing the release of the acquired lands, given that a significant portion of the originally acquired land had already been released.
2. Whether the State’s refusal to release the remaining land was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. Whether the High Court was justified in directing the release of the land in CWP No. 10452/2014, which was already utilized for sewage lines.

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Vipin Jindal Case: The Supreme Court followed its earlier stance, noting the inconsistent stand of the State Government and emphasizing that similarly situated persons should be granted similar relief.
• CWP No. 5732/1988 and CWP No. 11377/1988: The Court considered these cases to highlight the arbitrary manner in which the State had released land, particularly favoring influential persons.
• Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: The Court used these provisions to explain the land acquisition process.
• Article 14 of the Constitution of India: The Court emphasized that the State’s actions should not be discriminatory, and should adhere to the principles of equality.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors. The Court was critical of the arbitrary manner in which the State of Haryana had released acquired land, particularly favoring influential persons while denying the same benefit to others. The Court emphasized that the State, as a guardian of public interest, should act fairly and consistently. The Court was also mindful of the fact that a significant portion of the acquired land had already been released, and the remaining land was not required for the stated public purpose in CWP No. 16346/2013. However, the Court also recognized the importance of public interest in CWP No. 10452/2014 and CWP No. 6729/2013, where the land was already utilized for sewage lines and road widening, respectively.

Logical Reasoning:

The court rejected the argument that part of the land could be released, holding that the acquisition could not be quashed for only a portion of the land. The Court emphasized that the State must act as a guardian of public interest and should not release land in an arbitrary manner. The court also noted that the State had not challenged the previous orders of the High Court which had directed the release of land and had seemed content with them. The court held that the State had taken an inconsistent stand in releasing lands of some landowners and not the others.

The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment:

“The State Government is guardian of the public interest and the public and the public interest was required to be considered the paramount interest rather than releasing the lands at initial stage in favour of the influential persons.”

“The State shall take care in future and must use the lands acquired for the purpose for which the same have been acquired otherwise the object and purpose of acquiring the land will be frustrated.”

“The part land cannot be released and/or with respect to the part land, the acquisition cannot be quashed.”

Key Takeaways

• The State cannot act arbitrarily in releasing acquired land. It must treat similarly situated landowners equally.
• If a significant portion of acquired land has been released, the State must have a valid reason for not releasing the remaining land.
• Land acquired for public purposes should be utilized for those purposes. The State should not release land to favor influential persons.
• Once land has been acquired and utilized for public purposes, it cannot be released, even if a portion of the acquired land has been released earlier.
• The State’s actions must be consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions, but emphasized that the State must use the lands acquired for the purpose for which the same have been acquired. The court also directed the State to take care in future and not release lands in an arbitrary manner.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the State cannot act arbitrarily in releasing acquired land. It must treat similarly situated landowners equally and must have valid reasons for not releasing the remaining land if a significant portion of the acquired land has already been released. The judgment reinforces the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution and emphasizes that the State must act as a guardian of public interest. The Supreme Court did not change the previous positions of law, but rather applied the existing legal principles to the specific facts of the case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal arising out of CWP No. 16346/2013, upholding the High Court’s decision to release the land. However, the Court allowed the appeals arising out of CWP No. 10452/2014 and CWP No. 6729/2013, setting aside the High Court’s orders to release the land, emphasizing the importance of public interest and the need for the State to act consistently and fairly. The Court stressed that the State must utilize acquired land for the intended public purpose and should not engage in arbitrary or discriminatory practices.