LexKISHORE CHHABRA versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 327 : 2025 INSC 419 Kishore Chhabra v. The State of Haryana & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 8968 of 2013) 01 April 2025 [B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Appellant sought release of his land from acquisition. Headnotes† Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Punjab Scheduled Roads & Controlled Areas Restrictions of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 – Appellant is the owner in possession of the land in question – The State issued notification u/s.4 of the 1894 Act for acquisition of the land – The LAC passed an award and mentioned that the possession of the land acquired was already taken and the same vests with the Government – Appellant filed various writ petitions challenging land acquisition proceedings, which were dismissed – His last writ petition was dismissed mainly on the ground that the possession is deemed to have been taken and continuing with physical possession would not confer any right whatsoever upon the appellant – Correctness: Held: In the instant case, by the virtue of the provisions and notification any land falling in the area was required to obtain Change of Land Use (CLU) for development – The appellant’s land fell within this controlled area, yet the appellant did not obtain any CLU – The requirement for CLU being a statutory mandate, release of land, in the absence of CLU is not permissible – As far as appellant’s plea of discrimination is concerned, the appellant’s case stands on a different footing in comparison to others inasmuch as the appellant has not obtained a valid CLU – Thus, the appellant’s plea of discrimination is rejected – However, since the appellant claims to be in continuous physical possession of the land wherein a factory is in operation and the department * Author 328 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports has not satisfactorily controverted this aspect of the matter, on the special facts of this case, in exercise of power u/Art.142, this Court deems it appropriate to direct that the compensation payable to the appellant should be calculated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as on the date of commencement of the said Act. [Paras 7,8,10,13] Case Law Cited Sube Singh v. State of Haryana (2001) 7 SCC 545; Hari Ram v. State of Haryana [2010] 2 SCR 756 : (2010) 3 SCC 621; Sham Lal v. State of Punjab (2013) 14 SCC 393; Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v. Shakuntla [2009] 15 SCR 413 : (2010) 12 SCC 448; Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana [2011] 14 SCR 1113 : (2012) 1 SCC 792; Patasi Devi v. State of Haryana [2012] 7 SCR 387: (2012) 9 SCC 503; Usha Stud & Agricultural Farms (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana [2013] 5 SCR 645 : (2013) 4 SCC 210; Women's Education Trust v. State of Haryana (2013) 8 SCC 99; Siemens Engg. & Mfg. Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India [1976] Supp. 1 SCR 489 : (1976) 2 SCC 981; State of Punjab v. Bandeep Singh [2015] 10 SCR 496 : (2016) 1 SCC 724 – referred to. List of Acts Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Punjab Scheduled Roads & Controlled Areas Restrictions of Unregulated Development Act, 1963; Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. List of Keywords Acquisition; Land; Release of land from acquisition; Possession of land; Physical possession of land; Change of Land Use; Change of Land Use being a statutory mandate; Discrimination; Article 142 of Constitution. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8968 of 2013 From the Judgment and Order dated 15.09.2011 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 17307 of 2011 [2025] 4 S.C.R. 329 Kishore Chhabra v. The State of Haryana & Ors. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv., Ms. Jhanvi Dubey, Ms. Vriti Gujral, Ms. Pallavi Singh, Ms. Vinny Shangloo, Rishabh Relan, G. Balaji. Advs. for the Respondents: K. M. Nataraj, A.S.G., B.K. Satija, A.A.G., Samar Vijay Singh, Ms. Sabarni Som, Fateh Singh, Aman Dev Sharma, Aashish Chopra, J.P. Sharma, Ajit Rajput, Dr. Sushil Balwada. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby the writ petition of the appellant, calling in question the order dated 17.08.2010 passed by the respondent/State r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.