Dharam Pal Vs. State of
Haryana & Ors.  INSC 2166 (15 December 2008)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7287 OF 2008 (Arising
out of SLP (C) No. 23164 of 2004) Dharam Pal ......
State of Haryana and Ors. ......Respondents
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,
in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition questioning legality of the
Notification dated 24.8.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (in short the `Act') as also the declaration under Section 6 of the
Act dated 22.8.2001. The only ground which was pressed into service during
arguments was that the construction made by the appellant has been acquired
whereas similar kind of constructions made with regard to others similarly
situated persons have been left out. The High Court did not find any substance
in the plea and dismissed it.
the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant placed strong reliance
on the judgment of this Court in Jagdish Chand & Anr. v. State of Haryana
and Anr. (2005 (10) SCC 162). This Court in Jagdish Chand's case (supra) relied
on earlier judgment of this Court in Sube Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana
and Ors. (2001 (7) SCC 545).
no one appeared for the respondent-State and its functionaries in spite of
service of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed.
In Jagdish Chand's
case (supra) it was observed as follows:
"6. This Court
in a similar situation, though on a different ground, dealing with the
structures of three different classes, found that there was no justification to
exclude the structures of Class `A' only and not to exclude structures of
Classes `B' and 2 `C'. In that background, and on the facts of those cases,
gave the directions as contained in paragraph 12 of the aforementioned case1
which reads: (SCC p. 549) "12. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The
judgments under challenge are set aside, the orders passed by the State
Government rejecting the representation of the appellants are quashed. The
Secretary, Urban Estates Department, State of Haryana, Respondent 1 herein, is
directed to consider the objection petitions filed by the appellants for
exclusion of their properties from acquisition and pass appropriate order
excluding such lands having structures on them excepting any land which is
required for construction of a road or hospital. Respondent 1 shall give
opportunity of hearing to the appellants before taking the decision. The
exercise shall be completed expeditiously if possible within three months.
There will, however, be no order as to costs."
view of what has been stated in Jagdish Chand's case and Sube Singh's case
(supra), we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and dispose of
the appeal on the following terms:
(1) The Secretary,
Urban Estates Department, State of Haryana is directed to consider the
objections of the appellant only so far as it relates to exclusion of the land
to the extent occupied by the structure and appropriate open area around the
structure for the beneficial enjoyment of the appellant.
direction shall not come in the way of the authorities in removing the
structures, if required for the purposes of road, hospital and other civic
(2) The Secretary,
Urban Estates Department shall decide not only the existence of the structures
prior to Section 4(1) notification or subsequent to, he shall also decide the
extent of structure which existed prior to Section 4(1) notification.
(3) It is also open
to the authorities to make adjustment or readjustment of plots for the purpose
of planned development and in case it becomes necessary, to give a little
additional area from the plots to the appellant. The appellant shall be bound
to take that additional area and also be bound to pay the cost of such area as
is chargeable to other allottees. The appellant shall also be bound to pay the
developmental charges as is charged from other allottees. It is open to the
parties to place documents or material in support of their contentions.
expect that as far as possible, the respondents shall try to retain the
structures, unless it becomes difficult for them to have a planned development without
removing them in view of what is stated above.
above directions will be applicable only to such of the cases where the
residential structures are made prior to the issuance of Section 4 (1)
notification and the appellant is actually residing there. However, in case of
any dispute as to whether the structures were made prior to Section 4(1)
notification or later, the Secretary, Urban Estates Department shall determine
that question after affording opportunities to both the parties, uninfluenced by
observations made in the impugned orders of the High Court.
make it clear that these directions are given on the peculiar facts of these
cases and are not intended for any general application.
appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)