RAMESHWAR AND ORS versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 13 S.C.R. 711 · Decided: 21-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
711
   [2022] 13 S.C.R. 711
711
RAMESHWAR AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
(Miscellaneous Application No. 50 of 2019)
In
(Civil Appeal No. 8788 of 2015)
JULY 21, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: ss. 4, 6 and 23 – Term ‘transfer’
in context of *Rameshwar & Ors vs State of Haryana’s case –
Meaning and nature of – Exclusion of the land from the deemed
award or forms part of the deemed award – On facts, issuance of
Notification u/s.4 on 27.08.2004, followed by the declaration u/s.6
and the receipt of objections from the landowners as also the matter
posted for publication of the award on 26.08.2007 – However, on
29.01.2010 the State decided to withdraw from the acquisition – In
the interim period, land owners induced to sell or transfer their
land to colonizers/developers at significantly lower rates of
compensation – Most of the colonizers/developers entered into
collaboration agreements after the notification u/s.4 – They sought
and were granted licenses by the Department of Town and Country
Planning – Challenged to, in the *Rameshwar’s case - This Court
held that decision to withdraw from the acquisition was a fraud on
the power under the Land Acquisition Act and invalidated all
transfers effected from the date of publication to the date of
publication of State’s decision to revoke the acquisition –
Applications by the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure
Development Corporation-HSIIDC and several others seeking
clarification of *Rameshwar’s case – Held: Term ‘transfer’ used
in *Rameshwar’s case is not confined to sale, lease or other
encrumbrance – It includes development and/or collaboration
agreements, as well as licenses issued during the suspect period,
whether or not in favour of the developer – Lands covered by
licenses issued to Paradise (ultimately transferred to Green Heights);
Karma (for which collaboration was entered into with Unitech);
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
712
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
Ram Pyari, Balbir Singh, Earl and Frontier (ultimately used by
Godrej); Express Greens (DLF); Kalinga and Innovative amount to
transfer – With respect to Green Heights, a sum of   5 crores per
acre is payable by Green Heights to HSIIDC – With respect to
Godrej, a sum of   5 crores per acre is payable by Godrej to HSIIDC
– Upon full compliance thereof, the lands covered by Green Heights
and Godrej’s projects would be excluded from the deemed award –
With respect to Karma, the 25.95 acres of land forms part of the
deemed award – Lands belonging to R.P. Estates and Subros,
excluded from the deemed award – With respect to Kalinga, the
HSIIDC to complete verification of all the relevant documents –
With respect to ABW, the HSIIDC to refund the amounts payable to
the allottees of the entire project – With respect to Legend Heights,
HSIIDC to hand over commercial units to allottees who were either
granted occupation, and /or in whose favour conveyance was
executed – Issuance of direction to the State to ensure that all
references pertaining to the acquisition are answered as expeditiously
as possible.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is clear that the collaboration agreements
formed the first element of a two-step process whereby the
colonizers / developers (who might have been also land owners)
having acquired lands, prior to the preliminary notification, went
ahead and entered into commitments by executing collaboration
agreements after the notification under Section 4, and even
declaration under Section 6, with full knowledge. The
consideration for parting with developmental rights was far higher
than the market value of the lands which they would have been
entitled to. These acts ultimately culminated with the decision
not to acquire the lands. The second step – and the important
one persuading the State not to acquire the lands - was the
application for, and the grant of, development licenses.  Uniformly,
in all these cases, the applications were made prior to the
scheduled date of publication of the award (26.08.2007). This is a
significant and tell-tale factor because there was no way the
applicants would have ordinarily known that an award would not
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
713
be pronounced on the concerned date. In fact, the application
clearly indicates foreknowledge that their lands would not be
ultimately acquired. This is what may be characterized as the
proverbial ‘smoking gun’ which establishes the com

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