Sube
Singh & Ors Vs. State of Haryana & Ors [2001] Insc 403 (17 August 2001)
A.P.
Misra & D.P. Mohapatra D.P.Mohapatra,J.
WITH Civil
Appeal Nos.5517-5530 of 2001 (Arising out of SLPC© Nos.11722-11723/1999, SLP ©
No.2199/2000, SLP © No.18228/1999, SLP © No.3351- 3352/2000, SLP © No.4857/2000
& SLP © No.12089/2000, SLP © No.16786/1999, SLP © No.16822/1999, SLP ©
Nos.17971-17973/1999 and SLP © No.13954/2001
Leave
granted.
These
appeals filed by the writ petitioners are directed against the judgment
rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 13th August, 1998 in which
eight writ petitions filed by the appellants and others were decided Six out of
the eight writ petition, Nos.4955, 6036, 4091, 8059, 5994 and 5174 of 1997 were
dismissed while Writ Petition Nos.5160 and 6012 of 1997 were allowed and the
notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the
Act), insofar as it related to the petitioners in those two cases was quashed.
The
High Court by a separate judgment rendered on 8.4.1999 dismissed eight other
similar writ petitions Nos.16399/96, 15228, 15549 of 1997, 403, 3524, 3677,
4752 & 15511 of 1998. In another judgment rendered on 17.2.2000 the High
Court dismissed the Civil Writ Petition No.8275/1997.
Since
the relevant facts and the grounds of challenge against the judgments are
similar in all these cases they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
For convenience we shall refer to the facts in the first batch of cases
referred to above.
The
State of Haryana issued the notification dated 26th May, 1995 under Section 4 of the Act
expressing its intention to acquire an area of 193.37 acres for the purpose of
development, utilisation for residential, industrial and commercial purposes
for pocket of Sectors 1 & 2 in the Town Bahadurgarh, district Rohtak by the
Haryana Urban Development Authority. The appellants claiming to be the owners
/occupiers of certain lands proposed to be acquired filed their objections
against the acquisition under section 5A of the Act. They questioned the
validity of the notification issued under section 4 of the Act on several
grounds including non-compliance with the mandatory provisions regarding
publication of the notification giving wide publicity in the locality, denial
of opportunity of personal hearing under section 5A of the Act, non-application
of mind by the concerned authorities on the points taken in the objection
petitions filed by them that they had built structures for residential and/or
commercial purposes on the lands owned by them and according to the policy
decision of the State Government such lands are to be excluded from
acquisition.
The
Land Acquisition Collector considering the objection petitions filed by the
appellants, other than appellant No.2 Ram Kumar Gupta, recommended to the State
Government for exclusion of the lands on the ground that there were structures
standing on the same. The State Government, however, did not accept the
recommendation and stood by the decision to acquire the land with the
structures thereon.
Notifications
were issued under sections 6 and 9 of the Act in due course.
In the
writ petitions filed by the appellants the objections taken before the Land
Acquisition Collector were reiterated and the High Courts intervention was
sought for releasing the lands on the ground of invalidity of the Notification
under section 6 of the Act and also on the ground for exclusion of the land
with structures from acquisition.
The
High Court, on examination of the records produced before it and on
consideration of the contentions raised by counsel appearing for the parties,
rejected the contention relating to denial of opportunity of hearing on the
objections filed by the petitioners under section 5A of the Act excepting the
two writ petitions noted earlier in which the Court held that reasonable
opportunity of hearing had not been granted to the petitioners. Regarding the
contention of release of the lands with structures thereon from acquisition the
High Court was not inclined to accept the same holding that there is no bar
under the Act or in any law for acquisition of land with a structure standing
on it, by the State Government. On these findings the High Court allowed the
two writ petitions and dismissed the other six petitions as noted earlier. It
is relevant to note here that the High Court had noted the contention on behalf
of the petitioners that some other land included in the notification on which
there stood built up structures have been excluded by the State Government
while the writ petitioners were not extended similar treatment, but neither
discussed the point nor recorded a finding on the same.
The
main thrust of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants
in these appeals was that the decision of the State Government not to accept the
prayer of the petitioners for exclusion of their property from acquisition is
arbitrary and discriminatory inasmuch as in the case of owners of other lands
lying within the area notified who had sought exclusion of their property on
the ground of existing structures the prayer was accepted and the lands were
excluded from acquisition. The learned counsel for the appellants referring to
the map showing different plots with structures in the area notified pointed
out how lands lying close to the lands of the appellants have been excluded
from acquisition while the prayer of the appellants has been turned down.
Shri Mahabir
Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana contended that the request of the
appellants for exclusion of their property from acquisition was not accepted
since the constructions on their lands were either B class or C class
constructions whereas the lands which were excluded from the acquisition had A
class constructions on them. This contention was also refuted by learned counsel
appearing for the respondents on the ground that no such principle was followed
uniformly and some of the appellants had pucca structures having the quality of
A class construction.
In the
counter and the note of submission filed on behalf of the appellants it is
averred, inter alia, that the Land Acquisition Collector on considering the
objections filed by the appellants had recommended to the State Government for
exclusion of the properties of appellants 1 and 3 to 6 and the State Government
had not accepted such recommendations only on the ground that the constructions
made by the appellants were of B or C class and could not be easily amalgamated
into the developed colony which was proposed to be built. There is no averment
in the pleadings of the respondents stating the basis of classification of
structures as A B and C class, nor is it stated how the amalgamation of all A
class structures was feasible and possible while those of B and C class
structures was not possible. It is not the case of the State Government and
also not argued before us that there is no policy decision of the Government
for excluding the lands having structures thereon from acquisition under the
Act. Indeed, as noted earlier, in these cases the State Government has accepted
the request of some land owners for exclusion of their properties on this very
ground. It remains to be seen whether the purported classification of existing
structures into A, B and C class is a reasonable classification having an
intelligible differentia and a rational basis germane to the purpose. If the
State Government fails to support its action on the touch-stone of the above
principle then this decision has to be held as arbitrary and discriminatory. It
is relevant to note here that the acquisition of the lands is for the purpose
of planned development of the area which includes both residential and
commercial purposes. That being the purpose of acquisition it is difficult to
accept the case of the State Government that certain types of structures which
according to its own classification are of A class can be allowed to remain
while other structures situated in close vicinity and being used for same
purposes (residential or commercial) should be demolished. At the cost of
repetition, it may be stated here that no material was placed before us to show
the basis of classification of the existing structures on the lands proposed to
be acquired. This assumes importance in view of the specific contention raised
on behalf of the appellants that they have pucca structures with R.C.roofing, Mozaic
flooring etc. No attempt was also made from the side of the State Government to
place any architectural plan of different types of structures proposed to be
constructed on the land notified for acquisition in support of its contention
that the structures which exist on the lands of the appellants could not be
amalgamated into the plan.
On the
facts and circumstances of the case revealed from the records, we are persuaded
to accept the contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the rejection
of the request of the appellants for exclusion of their land having structures
on them was not based on a fair and reasonable consideration of the matter. We
are of the view that such action of the Government is arbitrary and
discriminatory.
Unfortunately,
the High Court failed to judge the cases in its proper perspective.
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 no.1 herein, is
directed to consider the objection petitions filed by the appellants for
exclusion of their properties from the 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 no.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 for costs.
.J.
(A.P.Misra)
.J.
Back