LexM/S. USHA STUD AND AGRICULTURAL FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 645 MIS. USHA STUD AND AGRICULTURAL FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 2557 of 2013} APRIL 02, 2013 [G.S. SINGHVI, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] A B Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 5-A and 6(1) - Violation C of - Discrimination in release of acquired land - Lands owned by appellants and five similarly situated others acquired for one and the same purpose - State Government I HUDA released acquired lands of five others, by executing agreements with them, but did not accord similar treatment · D to appellants - Justification - Held: Not justified - Appellants were subjected to hostile discrimination - The solitary reason put forward by the respondents for not releasing the appellants' land, namely, that most of it was lying vacant was ex-facie erroneous, which is clear from the notings recorded by the E officers and the Special Secretary to the Chief Minister of the State on th.e objections filed by the appellants - While ordering the issue of notification u/s.6(1), the Chief Minister did not even advert to the objections filed by the appeliants and the report made by the Land Acquisition Collector u/s.5- F A(2) - Direction given by the Chief Minister for issue of notification u/s. 6(1) without considering the objections· of the appellants and other relevant factors was vitiated due to non- app/ication of mind - Decision taken at the level of the Chief Minister not in consonance with the scheme of s.5-A(2) rlw G s. 6(1) - The State Government's refusal to release the appellants' land resulted in violation of their right to equality granted u/Article 14 of the Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 14. 645 H 646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R. A Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.5-A(2) - Purpose and effect of - Opportunity to the objector - Obligation of the Collector - Rule of audi alteram partem. The appellants challenged the acquisition of their 8 land in Writ Petition which was dismissed by the High Court along with other similar petitions. The appellants and the others similarly situated then filed Special Leave 'petition. During the pendency of the SLPs, the State Government released the land belonging to the other C similarly situated petitioners. Subsequently, the Chief Town Planner submitted a note for release of the ap·pellants' land subject to the condition that they should withdraw the SLP. The appellants did the needful, whereafter an agreement was D executed between the appellants and Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) for release of land. However, before the all terms of the said agreement could be acted upon, the State Government issued fresh notification dated 7 .12.1988 under Section 4(1) of the E Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the acquisition of land including the land owned by the appellants. They filed detailed objections dated 4.1.1989. The Land.Acquisition Collector as also the Chief Town and Country Planner made recommendation that the land of the appellants may F not be notified because the same had already been released from acquisition. However, the State Government did not accept their recommendations and Issued a declaration under Section 6(1 ), which was published in the Official Gazette dated 6.12.1989. G The appellants challenged notifications dated 7 .12.1988 and 6.12.1989 in Writ Petition. During the pendency of those petitions, the Land Acquisition Collector passed award, which was followed by a supplementary award. Thereupon, the appellants filed H another Writ Petition and prayed for quashing of the USHA STUD AND AGRICULTURAL FARMS PRIVATE 647 LIMITED v. STATE OF HARYANA awards. Meanwhile a substantial portion of the lands A belonging to the similarly situated others had been released by the State Government I HUDA. In the writ petitions filed by them, the appellants highlighted the discrimination practiced against them and B pleaded that even though the Land Acquisition Officer and the Chief Town Planner had recommended the release of their land, the State Government arbitrarily issued the declaration under Section 6(1) by wrongly assuming that the entire land was lying vacant. The C Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions, and therefore the instant appeal. The question which arose for consideration of this Court was whether the ac<fulsition of the appellants' land
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.