BHARAT SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 1050 · Decided: 13-09-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BHARAT SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
STAIB OF HARYANA & ORS. 
SEP'IEMBER 13, 1988 
B 
[MURARI MOHON DUTT AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 4( ])-Whether substance of 
the notification is published in the localities concerned or not is pre-
eminently a matter of fact and not of law. 
Land Acqu:Sition Act, 1894-Section 3-Public purpose-Deve-
C lopment and industrialisation of land is a public purpose and not a 
profiteering venture. 
Pleadings-Pleadings under Civil Procedure Coae and a writ peti-
tion or counter affidavit are different-In plaint or written statement 
D facts are to be pleaded but in writ petition facts and evidence in proof 
thereof is also to be pleaded. Point of law should be substantiated by 
facts-The facts must be pleaded and proved by evidence which miist 
appear from writ petition or counter affidavit-If not so done Court will 
not entertain that point. 
E 
The State of Haryana through Haryana Urban Development 
Authority (BUDA) acquired some land under the Land Acquisition Act 
for the purpose of development and utilisation of that land for indust-
rial purposes of Gurgaon under the Haryana Urban Development 
Authority Act, 1977. The appellants herein filed writ petitions in the 
High Court challenging the validity of the acquisition of land. The High 
F 
Court dismissed the writ petition,. Hence the writ petitioners filed these 
appeals by special leave. Some other affeCted persons also filed writ 
petitions in this Court Dismissing all the appeals and the writ petitions, 
this Court, 
HELD: The first ground of attack to the acquisition that the sub-
G 
stance of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act has not been 
published in the locality of the land said to be acquired is without any 
foundation. Whether the substance of the notification was published or 
not is pre-eminently a question of fad. It is apparent from the statement 
made in paragraph 8 of the affidavit in reply of the Land Acquisition 
4 
Collector that the substance of the notification was published in the 
H 
concerned localities. It is further stated in the affidavit that pursuant to 
1050 
-
i 
' 
BHARAT SINGH '· STATE OF HARYANA 
1051 
such publication, 157 of the .land owners filed objections to the proposed 
acquisition. This fact has not been disputed by the appellants . .In view of 
these facts the first ground of attack is without any foundation 
whatsoever. [l054D-E] 
The second ground of attack was that the sole purpose of the 
acquisition was for a profiteering venture of the Government to acquire 
land at nominal price and then to re"sale the same at a high profit, 
Reliance was placed on an application for intervention filed in this 
matter by Baryana State Industrial Development Corporation (BSIDC) 
which showed that BUDA sold the land to BSIDC at a very high price 
paid by BSIDC out of the amounts received from. intended allottees/ 
entrepreneurs. In the opinion of this Court the facts stated in the appli-
cation of the BSIDC do not, support the contention of the appellants. It 
is true that, as stated in the said application, BSIDC paid a sum of 
Rs.I. 74 crores to BUDA, but nothing turns out on that. The land was 
acquired by the Government for the purpose of development and 
industrialisation. The Government can do it itself or through other 
agencies. In the instant case, the land was acquired at the instance of 
BUDA and, thereafter, BUDA had transferred the same to BSIDC. It 
is not that the land was transferred in the same condition as it was 
acquired. But, we are told by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf 
A 
B 
c 
D 
of BUDA and BSIDC that before transferring, BUDA had made ex-
ternal developments incurring considerable cost and BSIDC in its turn 
has made various internal developments and in this way the land has 
E 
been fully developed and made lit for industrialisation. Thus, there was 
no motive,for BUDA to make any profit. [1058E-B; 1059A] 
The "Public purpose" in question is development and industriali-
sation of the acquired land. The appellants have not challenged the said 
public purpose. In the absence of any such challenge it does not lie in 
F 
the mouth of the appellants to contend that the acquisition was merely a 
profiteering venture by the State Government through Haryana Urban 
Development Authority. Even assuming that HUDA has made some 
profit, that will not in any way affecl the public purpose for which the 
land was acquired and the acquisition will no

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.