DHARAM PAL versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 564 · Decided: 15-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 564 
DHARAM PAL 
II. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7287 of 2008) 
DECEMBER 15, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.J 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
ss.4 and 6 -
Notifications under -
Writ petition 
challenging legality of Notifications on the ground that 
constructions made by writ petitioner was acquired whereas 
similar kind of constructions made with regard to others 
similarly situated persons were left out - Dismissed - It wcis 
held in Jagdish Chand case* that there was no justification 
to exclude the structures of one class and not to exclude the 
structure of other classes - Relying on that case, the 
impugned judgment of High Court is set aside - Appeal 
disposed of with directions to State to consider objections of 
writ petitioner only so far as they relate to exclusion of the land 
to the extent occupied by the structure and also to decide the 
existence and extent of structure which existed prior to s.4(1) 
Notification - The directions would be applicable only te such 
cases where the residential structures were made prior to . 
issuance of s.4(1) Notification and appellant was actually 
residing there. 
Jagdish Chand and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr. 
2005(10) sec 162 and Sube Singh and Ors. v. State of 
Haryana and Ors. 2001 (7) sec 545, relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
2005(10) sec 162 
relied on 
Paras 3, 4, 5 
2001 (7) sec 545 
relied on 
Paras 3, 5 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
7287 of 2008. 
564 
. ...._ 
• 
}- .. 
\ ....... 
·-
.-
DHARAM PAL v. STATE OF HARYANAAND ORS. 
565 
From the Judgment and final Order dated~2.2064-eftoo A 
"' ~ 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ 
Petition No. 10939 of 2003. 
Naresh Kaushik and Lalita Kaushik for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
8 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge 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 c 
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 
D 
similarly situated persons have been left out. The High Court 
~-
did not find any substance in the plea and dismissed it. 
3. During 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 
E 
(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). 
4. Though, no one appeared for the respondent-State and 
its functionaries in spite of service of notice, a counter affidavit 
F 
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 
G 
structures of Class 'A' only and not to exclude structures 
of Classes 'B' and '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) 
H 
.....,, 
e 
566 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 
,.,,.
A 
"12. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The judgments 
under challenge are set aside, the orders passed by the 
~ 
)o( 
State Government rejecting the representation of the 
appellants are quashed. The Secretary, Urban Estates 
Department, State of Haryana, Respondent 1 herein, is 
B 
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 
A 
for construction of a road or hospital. Respondent 1 shall 
c 
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." 
5. In view of what has been

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