RAMESHWAR & OTHERS versus STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

Citation: [2018] 5 S.C.R. 205 · Decided: 12-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
205
RAMESHWAR & OTHERS
v.
STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 8788 of 2015)
MARCH 12, 2018
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Land Acquisition:
Notification u/s. 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – For setting
up of Industrial Township – Objections u/s. 5A filed – Soon after
initiation of acquisition proceedings various sale deed executed by
land-holders in favour of certain builders/private entities – After
Notification u/s. 6 also builders/private entities continued
approaching the land-holders showing other awards passed in
respect of adjoining land for the same purpose wherein
compensation was granted @ 12.5 lakhs and offered higher
purchase prizes – After notices u/s. 9 for pronouncement of awards,
the builders/private entities started enhancing the price and bought
the land from the land-holders at a price around Rs.80 lakhs per
acre – Thereafter the State by order dated 24.8.2007 dropped the
acquisition proceedings stating that fresh Notification would be
issued – Pending writ petitions by land-holders challenging the
acquisition proceedings were disposed of as infructuous – Building
Plans of Group Housing Societies and schemes of the builders/
private entities (purchasers) were approved by the State – By order
dated 29.1.2001 decision was taken by the State Government in
view of the recommendation of Inter Departmental Committee –
Farmers, having come to know that the lands under acquisition
were utilized by the builders/colonizers, started agitation – Request
was also made for registration of FIR in respect of fraud played by
the officials in connivance with the builders – Writ petition  by land-
holders taking the plea that initiation of  acquisition  proceedings
and thereafter dropping of acquisition proceeding was deliberate
and fraught with malice – High Court dismissed the writ petition
holding that challenge to the dropping of proceeding since initiated
4½ years later, hence was belated – On appeal, Supreme Court
directed CBI (to whom investigation in the matter had been entrusted
[2018] 5 S.C.R. 205
205
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
206
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
by the State) to place its report before Supreme Court – Held:
Decisions dated 24.8.2007 and 29.1.2010 were inconsistent with
the relevant policy of the State – They were also not consistent with
Regional Plan under NCR Act and the Final Development Plan for
Gurgaon-Manesar – Public interest was not the underlying objective
behind the decisions – The decisions were taken to confer
advantages to builders/private entities – There was unholy nexus
between Government machinery and the builders/private entities in
devising a modality to deprive the gullible land-holders of their
holdings – Thus, the decisions were result of a fraud on power and
were not bona fide exercise of power – The facts of the case show
that there was nothing wrong with the initiation of acquisition
proceedings, but during the process it was hijacked by vested
interests – Therefore, mere invalidation of the transaction would
not be appropriate relief – Real and substantial relief would be in
restoring the situation where process of acquisition is made free
from such supervening vested interest and is enabled to achieve the
objective that the acquisition was intended to sub-serve – When
there is fraud on power, duty of the Court is not only to set aside
such exercise of power, but to see that there is no unjust enrichment
and there is full and substantial restoration – Unjust retention of
benefit would be against the fundamental principles of justice, equity
and good conscience – In the present case, as there was a completed
acquisition, the award is deemed to have been passed on the date
when it was supposed to be pronounced – The greater victim in the
present case was public interest – The land-holders who had sold
their lands to the builders/private entities had received
considerations greater than the amount awarded in other cases,
hence they cannot be given benefit of annulment of transactions
and restorations of their holdings – The land-holders who had not
transferred their holdings and the purchasers of individual
apartments from builder, cannot be subjected to any prejudice –
Appropriate directions issued – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.
4,6, 9 and 11 –  The Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 –
s.24(1(b) – Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas
Act, 1975

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