Summary
Of 46.49 acres notified in April 1987 for developing Sector 11, Kurukshetra, Haryana released or allowed quashing of all but about 7.78 acres, first in favour of influential persons and then under unchallenged High Court orders; the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed release of three remaining parcels on parity under Article 14. The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal for the parcel now said to be needed for a shopping mall and parking, deprecating the arbitrary release of acquired land and reminding the State that it is guardian of the public interest, but allowed the appeals for the other two parcels: one is already used for a sewage line built for about Rs. 17 crores and cannot be partly released once acquisition is complete and the land vested, and the other is required for road widening, so refusal of release was justified.
Issues
- Whether landowners whose acquired land has not been released are entitled on parity under Article 14 to release from acquisition where the bulk of the land covered by the same notification was released by the State or under High Court orders.
- Whether land already put to public use or required for a public purpose after completion of acquisition and vesting can be released or partly released.
Provisions considered
- Sections 4, 5A, 6 and 16, Land Acquisition Act, 1894Where the acquisition has been completed by award, payment of compensation and taking of possession, the land vests in the State free from encumbrances; part of such land cannot be released and the acquisition cannot be quashed in part, particularly where the land is used for a sewage line or required for widening a road. (¶¶ 5.1, 5.4, 5.5)
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaWhere all other land under the 1987 notification except a small plot was released either by the State on its own or under High Court orders it never challenged, and the Court had earlier noted the State's inconsistent stand in Vipin Jindal's case, the High Court's direction to release that plot on parity called for no interference. (¶¶ 2.5, 4, 4.1, 5.1, 5.3)
Held
- The manner in which the State released acquired land from the Section 5A stage onwards, initially in favour of influential persons including the then Speaker and a religious body and thereafter under unchallenged High Court orders, is highly deprecable; land acquired by an urban development authority for new sectors must be retained with future expansion over 20 to 25 years in view, and the State as guardian of the public interest must in future use acquired land for the purpose of acquisition. (¶¶ 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3)
- The parcel in CWP No. 10452 of 2014 is already used for sewage lines built at a cost of about Rs. 17 crores and the plea to release the remainder cannot be accepted, since acquisition was complete and the land vested; the parcel in CWP No. 6729 of 2013 is required for widening of the road and the State was justified in refusing release, so both High Court orders are unsustainable. (¶¶ 5.4, 5.5)
Result
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 11843 of 2022 (CWP No. 16346 of 2013) dismissed with observations; appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11844 and 11842 of 2022 and SLP (C) No. 3980 of 2023 (CWP Nos. 10452 of 2014 and 6729 of 2013) allowed and the High Court's common judgment dated 09.04.2021 quashed to that extent; no costs.