Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition, Rejects Discrimination Claim: Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Abhishek Gupta (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 21 October 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 796
Judges: Surya Kant, J. and K.V. Viswanathan, J.
Can a state authority acquire land even if some structures exist on it? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning land acquisition by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), now HSVP. The court examined whether the acquisition process was valid and if the landowners’ objections were properly considered. The bench, consisting of Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan, delivered the judgment, with Justice Surya Kant authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), now known as HSVP, initiated land acquisition proceedings in 1999 to acquire 952.18 acres of land in Panchkula, Haryana. This land was intended for residential, commercial, institutional, and recreational development. The land was located between Chandigarh and the Shivalik Range, bordered by Sukhna Lake and a forest area. The respondents, landowners in the area, objected to the acquisition, claiming that their land contained fruit trees and authorized structures, including a cattle shed, greenhouse, and farmhouse. They argued that these features should exempt their land from acquisition, citing a state policy and prior authorizations from the Commissioner, Ambala, and the Additional District Judge (ADJ), Ambala.

The Collector initially accepted the objections, but the State Government proceeded with the acquisition, asserting that the structures were unauthorized. Aggrieved, the landowners approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which quashed the acquisition notifications, citing improper consideration of objections and discriminatory treatment, as similarly situated land belonging to Maharaja Harinder Singh ‘Khalaf’ Maharaja Varinder Singh had been exempted from acquisition. HUDA then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed the land acquisition notifications, ruling that the landowners’ objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were not properly considered. The High Court also found that the acquisition was discriminatory because similarly situated land belonging to Maharaja Harinder Singh ‘Khalaf’ Maharaja Varinder Singh was exempted. Aggrieved by this decision, the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section pertains to the publication of a preliminary notification for land acquisition. The notification is issued when the government believes that land is needed for a public purpose.
• Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section provides a crucial safeguard to landowners, allowing them to file objections against the proposed acquisition. It mandates that the Collector must hear these objections and make a report to the government with recommendations. The section states that the Collector shall “either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under Section 4, sub -section (1), or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government. The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final.”
• Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section deals with the declaration of intended acquisition after considering the objections under Section 5A.
• Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952: This act regulates construction activities in the periphery of Chandigarh.
• Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975: This act regulates the development and use of land in urban areas of Haryana.
• Article 14 of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination.

Arguments

Appellant (HUDA/HSVP) Arguments:

• Unauthorized Constructions: The appellant argued that the constructions by the respondents were unauthorized. Although the Commissioner, Ambala, granted permission, it was conditional on submitting a building plan, which was never done. Therefore, the objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were rightly rejected.
• Collector’s Role: The Collector’s recommendation to release the land was not binding on the State Government. The State, after due inspection by a High-Powered Committee, found the constructions unauthorized and not in conformity with the Developmental Plan.
• No Discrimination: The land belonging to Maharaja Harinder Singh ‘Khalaf’ Maharaja Varinder Singh was also subsequently acquired. Any delay in its acquisition was due to pending public interest litigations, not discrimination. The respondents also failed to demonstrate that the land was similarly placed.
• Reliance on Precedent: The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana, arguing that the State Government was justified in disagreeing with the Collector and proceeding with the acquisition.

Respondents (Landowners) Arguments:

• Burden of Proof: The burden to prove the construction was illegal lies on the appellant, which they failed to do. The order of the ADJ dated 05.04.1994 confirmed that no further permission was needed.
• Violation of Section 5A: The respondents’ objections were not properly considered, violating Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The provision is a valuable safeguard and cannot be treated as a mere formality.
• Flawed Inspection: The High-Powered Committee’s inspection was not thorough, and the committee’s composition indicates an abdication of power by the State government.
• Discriminatory Treatment: The land of Maharaja Harinder Singh ‘Khalaf’ Maharaja Varinder Singh was re-acquired at a higher rate in 2007, which was discriminatory to the respondents.
• Subsequent Development: The State of Haryana agreed to release the land if the respondents provided part of it for basic amenities and used the rest for charitable purposes. The court should give effect to this agreement.
• Doctrine of Merger: The present appeals are not maintainable because the Supreme Court had dismissed the previous appeals filed by the State of Haryana against the same impugned order.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for analysis:

1. Whether the mandatory procedure under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was complied with?
2. Whether the land acquisition proceedings should be invalidated due to differential treatment of similarly placed landowners?
3. Whether the appeals should be dismissed due to subsequent developments, such as a settlement between the parties?
4. Whether the doctrine of merger applies, given that the State’s appeals against the same judgment were previously dismissed?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Women’s Education Trust v. State of Haryana, (2013) 8 SCC 99: This case was cited to emphasize that Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, codifies the fundamental safeguard of audi altrem partem, providing landowners the opportunity to demonstrate that the acquisition is against public purpose or marred by mala fides.
• NOIDA v. Darshan Lal Bora, 2024 INS 508: This case was cited to explain the hearing stage of objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where the Collector must provide an oral hearing to the objecting landowners.
• Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1975) 4 SCC 298: This case was used to clarify that the Collector has no power to “decide” the case, and can only give “recommendations” to the Government.
• Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2005) 9 SCC 164: This case was cited to support the State Government’s authority to disagree with the Collector’s report and proceed with the acquisition.
• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd., 1964 SCC On line SC 121: This case was used to emphasize that a mere plea regarding differential treatment is insufficient; the claimant must instead demonstrate that similarly placed classes had been treated dissimilarly, unjustifiably.
• Gurcharan Singh & Ors. v. New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors., (1996) 2 SCC 459: This case was cited to support the principle that Article 14 cannot be ordinarily employed as a ground to claim negative equality.
• Vivek Coop. House Building Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana, 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 15802: This case was cited to support that the High Court ought to have exercised its writ jurisdiction to annul such illicit benefit received by the similarly placed person.
• Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh, (1991) 1 SCC 745: This case was cited to support that the High Court ought to have exercised its writ jurisdiction to annul such illicit benefit received by the similarly placed person.
• State of Haryana v. Vinod Oil & General Mills, (2014) 15 SCC 410: This case was cited to support the principle that the existence of constructions on the land, whether authorized or not, cannot be an absolute embargo on the Government’s power of eminent domain.
• Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359: This landmark case was cited to explain the doctrine of merger and its application.
• Khoday Distilleries Limited v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, Kollegal, (2019) 4 SCC 376: This case was used to reiterate the principles of merger and its application.
• GNCTD v. BSK Realtors, 2024 INSC 455: This case was cited to explain the exception to the doctrine of merger under Article 142 of the Constitution.
• Uddar Gagan Properties v. Sant Singh and others, (2016) 11 SCC 378: This case was cited in regard to the violation of public trust doctrine.
• Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Devender Kumar and others, (2011) 12 SCC 375: This case was cited in regard to the violation of public trust doctrine.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: The Court extensively analyzed the four stages of the process under Section 5A: filing, hearing, recommendation, and decision. It clarified the roles of the Collector and the State Government, emphasizing that the Collector’s report is not binding on the government.
• Article 14 of the Constitution of India: The Court discussed the principle of equality under Article 14 and held that it cannot be used to claim negative equality.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that the land acquisition process was valid, the landowners’ objections were properly considered, and there was no discrimination. The Court also rejected the proposed settlement between the parties and directed the State to proceed with the acquisition. The Court invoked Article 142 to carve out an exception to the doctrine of merger.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Women’s Education Trust v. State of Haryana, (2013) 8 SCC 99*: The Court followed this authority to emphasize the importance of Section 5A as a safeguard for landowners.
• NOIDA v. Darshan Lal Bora, 2024 INS 508*: The Court followed this authority to explain the hearing stage under Section 5A.
• Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1975) 4 SCC 298*: The Court followed this authority to clarify that the Collector’s role is recommendatory, not decisive.
• Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2005) 9 SCC 164*: The Court relied on this authority to support the State Government’s power to disagree with the Collector’s report.
• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd., 1964 SCC On line SC 121*: The Court followed this authority to emphasize the need to demonstrate unjustifiable disparate treatment for a claim of discrimination.
• Gurcharan Singh & Ors. v. New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors., (1996) 2 SCC 459*: The Court followed this authority to support that Article 14 cannot be used for negative equality.
• Vivek Coop. House Building Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana, 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 15802*: The Court followed this authority to support that the High Court should have annulled the illicit benefit.
• Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh, (1991) 1 SCC 745*: The Court followed this authority to support that the High Court should have annulled the illicit benefit.
• State of Haryana v. Vinod Oil & General Mills, (2014) 15 SCC 410*: The Court relied on this authority to state that authorized constructions do not bar acquisition.
• Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359*: The Court discussed and applied the principles of merger from this case.
• Khoday Distilleries Limited v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, Kollegal, (2019) 4 SCC 376*: The Court discussed and applied the principles of merger from this case.
• GNCTD v. BSK Realtors, 2024 INSC 455*: The Court followed this authority to invoke Article 142 to create an exception to the doctrine of merger.
• Uddar Gagan Properties v. Sant Singh and others, (2016) 11 SCC 378*: The Court followed this authority in regard to the violation of public trust doctrine.
• Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Devender Kumar and others, (2011) 12 SCC 375*: The Court followed this authority in regard to the violation of public trust doctrine.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Compliance with Procedure: The Court emphasized that the State had followed the due process under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The landowners were given a hearing, and their objections were duly considered.
• Public Interest: The Court prioritized public interest over private interests, stating that the acquisition was for a larger developmental purpose.
• Rejection of Discrimination Claim: The Court found that the claim of discrimination was unfounded, as the land of Maharaja Harinder Singh ‘Khalaf’ Maharaja Varinder Singh was also acquired.
• Rejection of Settlement: The Court rejected the proposed settlement due to concerns about its arbitrary nature and lack of proper justification.
• Judicial Propriety: The Court invoked Article 142 to do complete justice, carving out an exception to the doctrine of merger due to the unjust nature of the High Court’s judgment and the potential harm to public interest.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was based on a thorough analysis of the facts, legal provisions, and precedents. It emphasized that the State had followed the due process, and the acquisition was in the public interest. The Court rejected the landowners’ claims of discrimination and improper consideration of objections. The Court also expressed concern over the State’s decision to release the land, finding it arbitrary and lacking in justification. The Court also noted that the orders of the Commissioner and ADJ permitted constructions that were to be erected specifically for agricultural purposes, not residential. The court also noted that the Respondents themselves had admitted to the intention of developing their lands and structures for non-agricultural activities and that they had failed to discharge their burden of proof. The Court stated that, “The choice of different terminologies for the role of the Collector and the role of the Government makes it evident that the Legislature intended different roles for each of them. The Collector has no power to “decide ” the case and can only give “recommendations ” to the Government. It is the Government which is the ultimate arbiter for determining whether the land is to be released or not.” The Court also stated that, “Private interest of a few, should give way to the public interest of the many.” The Court also stated that, “The fact that the factory and building was put up in the land with the approval of the authority cannot be a bar for acquisition of the land. Public interest overrides individual interests.”

Key Takeaways

• Compliance with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Landowners must be given a fair hearing and their objections must be considered, but the Collector’s recommendations are not binding on the State Government.
• Public Interest Prevails: Land acquisition for public purposes is given precedence over private interests.
• No Negative Equality: Article 14 cannot be used to claim benefits simply because others have received them.
• Authorized Constructions Not a Bar: The existence of authorized constructions on land does not prevent the government from acquiring it for public purposes.
• State’s Power to Release Land: While the State has the power to release land, it must be done judiciously, rationally, and with proper application of mind.
• Judicial Review: Courts can review the State’s decision to release land, especially if it is arbitrary or against public interest.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The judgment of the High Court was set aside.
2. Any other judgment or order of the High Court following the main judgment was also set aside.
3. If no award for the land owned by the respondents was passed earlier, the same shall be passed expeditiously, within three months.
4. If an award has already been passed, there is no need for a fresh award. However, the respondents have the liberty to avail their remedy under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within two months.
5. If the land of the respondents is found to have the same potentiality and utility as that of Maharaja HarinderSingh ‘Khalaf’ Maharaja Varinder Singh, the respondents shall be entitled to the same compensation as was granted to them.