HARI RAM & ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 2 S.C.R. 756 · Decided: 11-02-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 756 
HARi RAM & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5440 of 2000) 
FEBRUARY 11, 2010 
[D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -
ss. 48, 4 and 6 -
Notification and declaration for acquisition of large tract of 
C land for public purpose - Representation for release from 
acquisition - State Government releasing land of similarly 
situated landowners from acquisition but rejected appellants' 
representation who were similarly placed - Challenge to -
Held: Where State Government exercises its power uls .. 48 for 
o withdrawal from acquisition in respect of a particular land, 
similarly situated landowners have right of similar treatment 
by State Government - Government is duty bound to act with 
substantial fairness and consistency in considering the 
representations of such landowners - It cannot pick and 
E choose some landowners and release their land from 
acquisition and deny the same benefit to others - On facts, 
State Government did not consider representation of 
appellants by applying the same standards which were 
applied to other land owners - No uniform policy with regard 
F to release of land from acquisition existed - Thus, action of 
State Government is violative of Article 14 and discriminatory 
- State directed to issue appropriate orders in respect of 
appellants' lands as done in the matters of other landowners 
- Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14. 
G 
The notification was issued u/s. 4 of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 proposing to acquire large tract of 
land. The land owners filed objections. The concerned 
Land Acquisition Officer released lands of some of the 
landowners and issued declaration u/s. 6 of the Act in 
H 
756 
HARi RAM & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 
757 
respect of the remaining lands. Various landowners filed 
A 
writ petitions challenging the notifications u/ss. 4 and 6 
of the Act; and also prayed for release of their lands.· 
During pendency thereof, a Joint Inspection Committee 
submitted its report. In view of the recommendations, the 
High Court ordered release of land in favour of 22 
B 
landowners and dismissed the writ petitions of the other 
petitioners including the appellants. The remaining 
landlords applied u/s. 48 of the Act for release of their 
land from acquisition. The State Government released the 
land of several landowners from acquisition except the c 
appellants. Aggrieved, appellants filed appeals before this 
Court. During pendency, this Court directed the State 
Government to consider the representation of the 
appellants for release of their land from acquisition. The 
appellants made representations and the' same were D 
rejected on basis of the policy dated Octo~er 26, 2007. 
The question for consideration in these 'appeals was 
whether the action of the State Government in rejecting 
the appellants' representations for withdrawal from 
acquisition of their land is an ultra vires act and 
E 
discriminatory. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is true that any action or order contrary 
F 
to law does not confer any right upon any person for 
similar treatment. It is equally true that a landowner 
whose land has been acquired for public purpose by 
following the prescribed procedure cannot claim as a 
matter of right for release of his/her land from acquisition 
but where the State Government exercises its power G 
under section 48 of the Act for withdrawal from 
acquisition in respect of a particular land, the landowners 
who are similarly situated have right of similar treatment 
by the State Government. Equality of citizens' rights is 
H 
758 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 
A one of the fundamental pillars on which edifice of rule of 
law rests. All actions of the State have to be fair and for 
legitimate reasons. The Government has obligation of 
acting with substantial fairness and consistency in 
considering the. representations of the landowners for 
B withdrawal from acquisition whose lands have been 
acquired under the same acquisition proceedi.ngs. The 
State Government cannot pick and choose some 
landowners and release their land from acqui!.~tion and 
~eny the same benefit to other landowners by creating 
c artificial distinction. Passing different orders in exercise 
of its power under section 48 of the Act in respect of 
persons similarly situated relating to same acquisition 
proceedings and for same public purpose is definitely 
violative of Articl

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