PATASI DEVI versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 7 S.C.R. 387 · Decided: 29-08-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI, S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 7 S.C.R. 387 
PATASI DEVI 
V. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6183 of 2012) 
AUGUST 29, 2012 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI 
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4 and 6 - Acquisition of 
land - Award passed on 9.12.2009 - Acquired land included C 
land of the appellant - Writ petition by appellant challenging 
the acquisition of her land on the ground that in the garb of 
acquiring land for a public purpose, the State Government 
misused its power u/ss.4 and 6 for benefit of a private 
colonizer (respondent no. 6) who was constructing a residential o 
colony; that her land should have been exempted/released 
in terms of the policy framed by the State Government since 
she had constructed a house on the land prior to issuance of 
s.4 notification; and that she was discriminated inasmuch as 
land belonging to one firm Mis 'SFH' was released while her E 
land was not released and that acquisition proceedings were 
vitiated due to non-application of mind by functionaries of 
State Government and violation of rules of natural justice -
High Court dismissed the writ petition - On appeal, held: The 
High Court was not right in holding that the writ petition of the F 
appellant was not maintainable because the same was filed 
after passing of the award - Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 failed to 
discharge the onus to prove that after passing of the award, 
possession of the acquired land had been taken and delivered 
to the Estate Officer, HUDA ·- No evidence was produced by 
the official respondents before the High Court to show that G 
possession of the appellant's land and the house constructed 
over it had been taken by the competent authority between 
9. 12. 2009, i.e., the ctate on which the award was passed and 
387 
H 
388 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012) 7 S.C.R. 
A 20.1.2010, i.e., the date on which the writ petition was filed 
before the High Court - Acquisition of the appellant's land was 
vitiated due to co/ourable exercise of power by the State 
Government - The State Government misused the provisions 
of ss.4 and 6 of the Act - The real object of the acquisition 
B was to benefit a private colonizer i.e. respondent No.6 - The 
official respondents are guilty of practising discrimination in 
the matter of release of land - Before Supreme Court it was 
pleaded that on the date of issuance of preliminary 
notification the appellant's land was vacant, but, this statement 
c cannot be relied upon for denying relief to her because no 
such averment was made in the counter affidavit filed before 
the High Court - The policy framed by the Government of 
Haryana clearly stipulates release of land on which 
construction had been raised prior to s.4 notification - The 
0 
appellant's case is covered by that policy - Therefore, her land 
ought to have been released as was done in the case of Mis. 
SFH - Acquisition of appellant's land is declared illegal and 
is quashed - Haryana Urban Development Authority, 1977. 
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial 
E 
Development and Investment Company (P) Limited (1996) 
11 SCC 501: 1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 551; Municipal Council, 
Ahmednagar, v. Shah Hyder Beig (2002) 2 SCC 48; C. 
Padma v. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu 
(1997) 2 SCC 627: 1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 158; Star Wire 
F 
(India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 698: 1996 (7) 
Suppl. SCR 6; Mis. Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of 
Rajasthan JT 2008 (2) SC 280; Banda Development 
Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal (2011) 5 SCC 394: 20~ 1 
(7) SCR 435; Ba/want Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat 
G (1976) 1 SCC 700: 1975 Suppl. SCR 250; Balmokand Khatri 
Educational and Industrial Trust v. State of Punjab (1996) 4 
SCC 212: 1996 (2) SCR 643; P.K. Kalburqi v. State of 
Karnataka (2005) 12 SCC 489; NTPC Ltd. v. Mahesh Dutta 
(2009) 8 SCC 339: 2009 (10) SCR 1084; Sita Ram Bhandar 
H Society v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2009) 10 SCC 501: 2009 
PATASI DEVI v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 
389 
(14) SCR 507; Brij Pal Bhargava v. State of UP. (2011 )5 SCC 
A 
413; Prahlad Singh v. Union of India (2011) 5 SCC 386: 2011 
(5) SCR 1002 and Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of 
Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 792: 2011 (14) SCR 1113 - referred 
to. 
Case Law Reference: 
B 
1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 551 
referred to 
Paras 5, 13 
(-2002) 2 sec 48 
referred to 
Paras 5, 13 
1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 158 
referred to 
Paras 5, 13 c 
~ 
1996 (7) Suppl. SCR. 6 
referred to 
Paras 5, 13 
JT 2008 (2) SC 280
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.