RAGHBIR SINGH SEHRAWAT versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2011] 14 S.C.R. 1113 · Decided: 23-11-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1113 
RAGHBIR SINGH SEHRAWAT 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 10080-10081 of 2011) 
NOVEMBER 23, 2011 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI . 
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
A 
B 
c 
ss. 4(1), 6(1), 5A(2) and 9 - Acquisition of agricultural 
land - Issuance of notification and declaration ulss. 4(1) and 
6(1) - Passing of award by the Land Acquisition Collector -
Writ petition by the appellant-land owner challenging the 
acquisition of land - On the ground of non-publication of 0 
Notifications; not. given opportunity of hearing by the Laryd 
Acquisition Collector; not served notice as per the mandate; 
and that the possession of the land was still with him and the 
paper possession taken by the respondents was 
inconsequential - Writ petition dismissed by the High Court 
E 
-
On appeal, held: No evidence to show that actual 
possession of the land on which the crop was standing had 
been taken after giving notice to the_ appellant nor was he 
present at the site when the possession of the acquired land 
was delivered to the State Industrial Infrastructure 
Development Corporation - Exercise undertaken by the 
F 
respondents showing delivery of possession was farce and 
inconsequential - Possession of the acquired land had not 
been taken from the appellant on the day on which the award 
was passed - Cr9ps were standing on several parcels of land 
including the appellant's land and possession as such could 
G 
not have been taken without giving notice to the landowners 
- Also it was not possible to give notice to large number of 
persons on the same day and take actual possession of land 
comprised in various survey numbers -
Thus, the record 
1113 
H 
11T4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A prepared by the revenue authorities showing delivery of 
possession of the acquired land to the Development 
Corporation has no legal sanctity - High Court erred in 
dismissing the writ petition on the specious ground that 
possession of the acquired land had been taken and the 
B same vested in the State Government in terms of s. 16 - More 
so, the appellant was not given opportunity of hearing as per 
the mandate of s.5A(2) - Thus, the acquisition of appellant's 
land is illegal and is quashed - State directed to pay 
appellant cost bf Rs. 2, 50, 0001- - Costs. 
c 
Land acquisition - Approach of the State Government -
State and its instrumentalities resorting to massive acquisition 
of agricultural land in the name of public purpose, without 
complying with the mandate of the statute - Justification of -
Held: It is wholly unjust, arbitrary and unreasonable to deprive 
D such persons of their houses/land/industry by way of 
acquisition of land in the name of development of 
infrastructure or industrialization - Before acquiring private 
land the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities should, as 
far as possible, use land belonging to the State for the 
E specified public purposes - If the acquisition of private land 
becomes absolutely necessary, then the authorities must 
strictly comply with tf]e relevant statutory provisions and the 
rules of natural justice. 
F 
Appellant purchased certain land and is cultivating 
the same. The State Government issued a Notification 
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act proposing 
to acquire the land for industrial development. The 
appellant filed an objection and pleaded that his land may 
G not be acquired because it was an agricultural land and 
was the only source of income. The Land Acquisition 
Collector 
heard 
the 
objectors 
and 
made 
recommendations for acquisition of some parcels of land 
and for release of some parcels of land specified in the 
H Notification. Thereafter, the declaration was issued under 
RAGHBIR SINGH SEHRAWAT v. STATE OF 
1115 
HARYANA 
Section 6(1) of the Act, notifying acquisition of lands. The 
A 
Land Acquisition Collector passed an award on 
28.11.2008. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging 
the acquisition -of his land. He contended that the 
Notifications issued under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act 
were not duly 'published; that he was hot given 
B. 
opportunity of hearing by the Land Acquisition Collector; 
that notice had not been served upon him as per the 
mandate; and that the possession of the land was still 
with him and the paper possession taken by the 
respondents was inconsequential. The Division Bench of c 
the High Court dismissed the wr

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