Summary
The Supreme Court restored the acquisition of the respondents' land in Panchkula, which the High Court had quashed for non-compliance with Section 5A and for discrimination. Section 5A guarantees a hearing, not a result; the Government may depart from the Collector's recommendation for reasons, and existing constructions do not bar acquisition. The discrimination plea failed and its basis had in any case been removed. The Court refused a compromise releasing the land as manifestly arbitrary, and used Article 142 to overcome the merger objection arising from the dismissal of the State's earlier appeals.
Issues
- Whether the mandatory procedure under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was complied with, and whether the Government could depart from the Collector's recommendation to release the land.
- Whether the acquisition was vitiated under Article 14 because land of a similarly placed owner had been left out.
- Whether the appeals should be disposed of in terms of a settlement under which the State agreed to release the respondents' land.
- Whether the appeals were barred by the doctrine of merger because the State's earlier appeals against the same judgment had been dismissed after leave was granted.
Provisions considered
- Section 5A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894The section codifies audi alteram partem and is mandatory. Objections move through four stages: filing, hearing, the Collector's recommendation, and the Government's decision. The Collector only recommends, and under the section the appropriate Government's decision is final. Compliance was established here, and the Government's departure from the Collector's report rested on a High-Powered Committee's inspection. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 26)
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaNo discrimination was shown, since 99.78% of the notified land was acquired. Article 14 does not support negative equality, and the remedy for land wrongly left out is to acquire it, not to exclude more. The other owner's land had in any case been acquired before the High Court's judgment. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29, 30, 31)
- Permissions for agricultural structures, Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952The Commissioner's permission and the ADJ's order covered only structures ancillary to agriculture, such as cattle sheds and greenhouses, not a residential farmhouse. The Court also doubted the civil court's competence to declare that no permission was needed, given the bar under this Act. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 23)
- Change of land use requirement, Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975Acquiring the whole land, including unauthorised structures, for regulated development was consistent with this Act, under which no construction on agricultural land is allowed without permission for change of land use. (¶¶ 24, 55)
- Section 48, Land Acquisition Act, 1894In finding the release decision arbitrary, the Court noted that the State's file did not consider, among other things, whether it could release the land under this power while the matter was pending before the Supreme Court. (¶¶ 42, 43)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaThe State's earlier appeals had been dismissed for non-prosecution after leave was granted, which arguably attracted merger. Since merger is a common-law rule of judicial propriety and not a rigid one, the Court used Article 142 to carve out an exception to do complete justice. (¶¶ 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53)
- Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894Where an award had already been passed, the respondents were given liberty to seek a reference within two months, and the Reference Court was directed not to reject it as time-barred. (¶ 54)
Held
- Section 5A is mandatory and guarantees the landowner a hearing and consideration of objections, not relief. The landowner bears the onus of showing a defect in the procedure, and none was shown here. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
- The Collector only makes recommendations, and the appropriate Government is the final decision-maker. The Government may disagree with the Collector on relevant and lawful grounds, subject to judicial review for arbitrariness or non-application of mind. Departing from the Collector here on the basis of an expert committee's inspection was justified. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
- The respondents claimed their structures were authorised as agricultural while also arguing that their land was put to residential use, the same purpose as the acquisition. This was self-contradictory, and they failed to prove the constructions were authorised. (¶¶ 19, 20, 22, 23)
- Even authorised constructions are no bar to acquisition. Exempting built-up land is a matter of State policy, not law, and the Government may proceed where exemption would harm the development plan, as public interest overrides private interest. (¶¶ 25, 26)
- A claim of discrimination under Article 14 requires proof that equals were treated unequally and with hostility. Article 14 cannot be used to claim negative equality, and the proper remedy for land wrongly left out is to acquire it. The High Court also ignored that the other owner's land had already been acquired before it ruled. (¶¶ 28, 29, 30, 31)
- The State's consent to release the respondents' prime land, cleared within days on brief notes by junior officials with no consideration of its effect on the remaining acquisition, on other landowners, on contiguity, or on the power to release while the matter was sub judice, was manifestly arbitrary. The Court refused to accept the compromise and criticised both the bureaucracy and the respondents' conduct. (¶¶ 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46)
- Dismissal of earlier appeals after leave is granted ordinarily attracts merger. But merger is a common-law principle not to be applied rigidly, and Article 142 may be used to carve out an exception where the impugned judgment is patently unjust and harmful to the public. (¶¶ 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment of 15.07.2008 and any orders following it set aside; award to be passed within three months if not already passed, otherwise liberty to seek a Section 18 reference within two months without a limitation bar; compensation at the rate paid for the other owner's similarly located land if the land has the same potential; State and HSVP to take possession and develop the land for its public purpose; compliance report due before 30.04.2025.