LexHARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus ABHISHEK GUPTA ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2278 : 2024 INSC 796 Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Abhishek Gupta etc. (Civil Appeal No(s). 7420-7421 of 2010) 21 October 2024 [Surya Kant* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration (i) Whether the mandatory procedure under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was followed while considering objections against the acquisition; (ii) Whether the acquisition proceedings were vitiated on grounds of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution due to differential treatment of similarly placed landowners; (iii) Whether appeals are liable to be dismissed as infructuous in view of subsequent developments like ‘settlement’ between the parties; (iv) Whether the doctrine of merger applies, given prior dismissal of other appeals by the State against the same impugned judgment. Headnotes† Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [‘LA Act’] – s.5A, LA Act codifies the fundamental safeguard of audi alteram partem – Landowners have the opportunity to demonstrate that the acquisition is against public purpose or marred by mala fides – Appropriate government may exempt such land from acquisition – s.5A envisions a modus of deliberation and consultation – Must be construed to be mandatory, akin to a right – Objections under s.5A proceed in four distinct stages – Discussed – Procedure mandated, not a particular outcome – Collector has no power to “decide” the case and can only give “recommendations” to the Government which is the ultimate arbiter – Government decision not beyond judicial review – Can be challenged as arbitrary or passed without due application of mind – Respondents have not placed any evidence on record to lay such foundation – Decision to go ahead with acquisition as Respondents’ structures were unauthorised was not whimsical – Predicated on findings of a High-Powered Committee – Departure from Collector’s recommendations * Author [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2279 Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Abhishek Gupta etc. made in public interest, with due application of mind and was fully justified – Appeal allowed: Held: Respondents failed to substantiate claims under Section 5A – State Government followed the four-stage procedure – Section 5A mandates a procedure, not a particular outcome – Respondents guaranteed a hearing and consideration, not relief – Interpretation of bare text of Section 5A – Legislature intended different roles for the collector and the Government – Collector has no power to “decide” the case and can only give ‘recommendations” to the Government who is the ultimate arbiter – Government’s decision not beyond judicial review – Can be challenged as arbitrary or passed without due application of mind – Onus on Respondents to point flaws in procedure – Respondents did not place any evidence on record to lay such foundation – Government/Appellant have demonstrated that their decision was not whimsical but was predicated on the findings of a High-Powered Committee which found Respondents’ structures to be unauthorized and not in conformity with the Development Plan – Government’s departure from the Collector’s recommendation made in public interest, with due application of mind and was fully justified. [Paras 4,5,7, 14,15, 17, 18, 20] Land Acquisition – Construction on land – Orders of Commissioner and ADJ permitting constructions specifically for agricultural land, not residential land – Respondents’ usage of land not limited to ‘agricultural purposes’ and it was intended to be ‘residential’ in nature as well – Orders permitting agricultural structures do not preclude the State Government from conducting an on-ground inspection as to the actual useof land – Serious doubts raised on jurisdictional competence of the Civil Court in holding that agriculture related structures could be raised without prior permission: Held: Orders of the Commissioner and ADJ were caveated approvals for prospective construction of the agricultural structures – Respondents admitted that the usage of the land was not limited to ‘agricultural purposes’ and that it was intended to be ‘residential’ in nature as well – The Respondents had not produced any reliable material to prove that the constructions on their land were authorised – In any case, exempting lands bearing constructions from acquisition is a matter of State Policy, not of law – Outcome would not be materially affected if construction was authorised – Prior authorization
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.