HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEV. CORPN. versus SHAKUNTLA & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 413 · Decided: 22-10-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Disposed off

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 413 
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEV. CORPN. 
A 
,,. ' 
v. 
SHAKUNTLA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7020 OF 2009, Etc.) 
OCTOBER 22, 2009 
B 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
" • 
Land Acquisition - Release from acquisition - High 
Powered Committee recommending release of certain land 
while denying release in respect of other land on same c 
parameters -
Writ Petition -
High Court holding the 
recommendation discriminatory - Directing release of land 
of writ petitioner on the conditions that land-owner maintains 
the green belt and pays development charges to Industrial 
'to! 
~ 
Development Corporation - On appeal, held: The act of High 
D 
Powered Committee in denying release of one land and 
allowing that of the other was discriminatory- Implementation 
of development plan is within the discretion of executive 
authority - But when guidelines have been laid down for such 
task, it is a matter of policy - Discretion to change a policy in 
E 
exercis.e of executive power must be ef ercised fairly - Where 
a particular mode is prescribed for domg an act and there is 
. 
~ 
no impediment in adopting the procedure, the deviation from 
the procedure without disclosing any discernible principles 
shall be labeled as arbit(ary -
However, condition of F 
maintaining green belt, is not correct - The condition modified 
to the effect that the Corporation would maintain the green belt 
- Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14, 1894 - s.4. 
Lands were acquired for the purpose of development 
G 
of a corporate complex for industrial institutional, 
~ + 
commercial and recreational purposes. Respondent 
No.1, being one of the owners of the acquired land 
sought for release from acquisition. 
413 
H 
414 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
On the petition of respondent No.1, High Court 
directed High Powered Committee to consider whether 
~ .... 
the lands in question could be released from acquisition. 
The Committee recommended acquisition of the land of 
respondent No.1 on the basis of parameters of evaluation 
B formulated for it. However, it recommended release of the 
land of another owner '0', on the same parameters. 
Respondent No.1 filed writ petition questioning the 
reco~mendation of the Committee. High Court held that 
• 
:._ 
C the release of land of '0' from acquisition was wrong and 
also amounted to discrimination against respondent 
No.1. High Court directed release of the land of 
respondent No.1 on the condition that they would 
maintain the green belt as desired by the Department 
which was essentially required to, lay .infrastructure and 
D that they would also pay extern'al and internal 
development to Haryana State Industrial Development 
Corporation (HSIDC) as and when assessed and 
demanded. Hence, the present appeals. 
E 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The land belonging to the respondent was 
rightly recommended for acquisition. The release of the 
land of '0' would not frustrate the whole object of 
F acquisition for 
1expansion of the industrial estate since the 
undertaking of 'O' to release land as desired by the 
HSIDC amounts to fulfillment of the lands needed by the 
HSIDC in that area. However, the manner in which it was 
released and the grounds that were relied on for its 
release are fought with defects that raise doubts 
G regarding the impartiality and sincerity of the authority. 
[Paras 8 and 9) [421-C-D; 422-8-C] 
2. It is not possible for the court to sit in appeal over 
the exe.r-eise of such satisfaction by the authority vested 
H with the task of implementing the development plan. The 
t· 
...
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEV. CORPN. v. 
415 
SHAKUNTLA & ORS. 
task of such authority is no doubt to ensure the smooth 
A 
•t 
execution of the development plans and since they have 
a firsthand knowledge of the ground realities, they are 
surely at a better position than any one else to decide as 
to which land is to be acquired and which is to be 
released. But when there has been a guideline laid down 
B 
for the same task and it has been approved and notified, 
the issue becomes a matter of policy which the authority 
has to follow with a reasonable amount of uniformity. In 
• 
.. 
the given facts of the case, the respondents have alleged 
discrimination thereby attracting Article 14 of the c 
Constitution of India. [Para 9-10] [422-F-H; 423-A-B] 
Union of India vs. International Trading Co. (2003) 5 SCC 
437, relied on. 
3. T

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