In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the acquisition of 952 acres of land in Panchkula by the Haryana government, reaffirming the principle that “private interests must yield to public good.” The bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, allowed the appeals of the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), now Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP), and set aside a 2008 decision by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that had annulled the acquisition. The judgment emphasized that public interest must take precedence over individual claims, especially in matters of large-scale development.
Background of the Case
The case concerns a 1999 acquisition of land located between Chandigarh and the Shivalik Range, near Sukhna Lake and a designated forest area. The land was acquired to develop residential, commercial, and institutional infrastructure as part of the Panchkula Urban Area. HUDA initiated the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, issuing notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. However, landowners, including Abhishek Gupta and others, raised objections, arguing that the acquisition was arbitrary, violated legal procedures, and discriminated against similarly situated landowners.
In 2008, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled in favor of the landowners, quashing the acquisition on grounds of procedural lapses and unequal treatment. Dissatisfied with the decision, HUDA appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting that the acquisition was essential for public development.
Legal Issues in Focus
The Supreme Court addressed four significant legal issues:
1. Compliance with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Did the state comply with the procedural requirements of Section 5A, which mandates that landowners’ objections must be duly heard and considered?
2. Discriminatory Treatment of Landowners: Did the state treat similarly situated landowners differently, thus violating Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law?
3. Impact of Settlement During Proceedings: Could a proposed settlement during the appeal proceedings affect the validity of the original acquisition?
4. Doctrine of Merger: Did the earlier dismissal of similar appeals impact the maintainability of the present appeal?
Arguments by the Parties
– HUDA’s Arguments:
– HUDA, represented by Senior Additional Advocate General Lokesh Sinhal, contended that the constructions on the land were unauthorized, despite initial permissions for agricultural use.
– It argued that the acquisition followed the procedures outlined under Section 5A, which required hearing objections, but not necessarily accepting them.
– HUDA also asserted that the land acquisition process was non-discriminatory, as all similarly situated lands were ultimately acquired through later notifications.
– Landowners’ Arguments:
– The landowners, represented by Senior Counsels Rajive Bhalla, Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, and Sanjeev Sharma, argued that the acquisition violated natural justice, as their objections were not properly considered.
– They alleged discriminatory treatment, citing that other similarly situated landowners, such as members of the royal family, were exempted from acquisition.
– The respondents also pointed to a settlement reached during the appeal process, where the state had agreed to release some land if used solely for charitable purposes.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling
The Supreme Court delivered a detailed 57-page judgment addressing the four primary issues:
1. Compliance with Section 5A:
The Court noted that Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act provides landowners with a procedural safeguard, ensuring that objections are heard but not necessarily upheld. It observed that the respondents were given a fair opportunity to present their case, and their objections were duly heard by the Collector and a High-Powered Committee. However, the state government decided to proceed with the acquisition based on broader public interest considerations. Justice Surya Kant remarked, “Landowners are entitled to a fair hearing, not a guaranteed outcome.”
2. Discriminatory Treatment:
On the claim of discrimination, the Court found that the state had acquired 99.78% of the initially notified land, indicating a uniform approach. It ruled that the solution to some lands being unjustifiably left out is to ensure comprehensive acquisition, not to exempt more lands. The Court emphasized, “The solution to discriminatory exemption is not to release more land but to ensure comprehensive acquisition.”
3. Impact of Settlement:
The Court rejected the proposed settlement, citing its potential to undermine the broader public interest. The compromise, which involved releasing some land for charitable use, was seen as inconsistent with the state’s responsibility to ensure uniform and fair development. The Court noted that such settlements must be carefully scrutinized to prevent misuse of public land for private gain.
4. Doctrine of Merger:
Although earlier appeals on the same matter were dismissed due to non-prosecution, the Court invoked its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice. It ruled that procedural barriers should not obstruct justice when public interest is at stake. The Court clarified that in cases impacting public welfare, exceptions to the doctrine of merger could be justified.
Justice Surya Kant, observed:
“The exercise of eminent domain must be guided by the principle that private interests, however significant, must ultimately yield to public good.”
Court’s Conclusion and Directions
Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court upheld the land acquisition by the Haryana government, setting aside the High Court’s decision. The Court directed the state to proceed with development as per the original plan and emphasized the need to utilize the land for the public purpose for which it was acquired. It also instructed the state to file a compliance report by April 30, 2025, ensuring that the land is developed in line with the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975.
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 7420-7421 of 2010
Parties Involved: Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA, now HSVP) vs. Abhishek Gupta & Others
Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
