SHAKUNTALA YADAV AND OTHERS versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 406 · Decided: 09-03-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 406 
SHAKUNTALA YADAV AND OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal Nos.2174-2175 of2012 etc.) 
B 
MARCH 09, 2016 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.] 
Land Acquistion Act, 1894 - s.48 - Release under - Of 
acquired land - Sought by land owner - On the ground that the 
C land was coming under Lal Dora - Request for release turned down 
by High Powered Committee on the ground that possession of the 
land had already been taken and handed over to the beneficiary of 
the acquisition - The order was confirmed by High Court - On 
appeal, held: There is nothing on record to show that physical 
possession of the land had already been taken and handed over to 
D the beneficiary - lf the land falls in Lal Dora, its release cannot be 
denied - Matter remitted to High Powered Committee to ascertain 
whether the land falls in Lal Dora. 
E 
F 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. There being no Rojnama to show that the physical 
possession bad already been taken, nor any pleadings in that 
regard, it cannot be said that the possession bad already been 
taken and banded over to HUDA. Unless the property is taken 
possession of, in accordance with law, there arises no question of 
banding over the property to HUDA. Symbolic possession will 
not serve the purpose. [Para 13] [411-A-B) 
Ragl1bir Singh Sehrawat vs. State of Haryana and 
others 2011 (14) SCR 1113 : (2012) 1 SCC 792 - relied 
on. 
2. In case the land of the appellants is in Lal Dora, there is 
G no reason to deny, a similar treatment as bas been granted to 
Millennium Industries Private Limited. However, on the 
pleadings available before this Court, it is difficult to arrive at a 
definite conclusion in that regard. Therefore, it is just and proper 
to remand the matter to the High Powered Committee. It is 
H 
clarified that the request of the appellants shall not be turned 
406 
'< 
SHAKUNTALA YADAV v. STATE OF HARYANA 
407 
down, on the ground of operation of Section 16 of the Land 
A 
Acquisition Act. [Paras 14 and 16) [411-A-C, E) 
Case Law Reference 
2011 (14) SCR 1113 
relied on. 
Para 13 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2174-
B 
2175 of2012 
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.05.2008 and 04. 12.2009 
in CWP No. 7706 of 2008 and Review Application No. 399 of 2009 
passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh 
Diljit SinghAhluwalia,Amarjit Singh Bedi, Md. Asfar Heyat Wasi, 
C 
Advs,, for the Appellants. 
Rahul Verma, AA.G, Sanjay Kumar" Visen, Adv., for the 
Respondents .. , 
WITH 
C.A. '!\)o. 2176-2177/2012 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. I. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 
2. The appellants are aggrieved since their request for release of 
1.23 acres ofland falling in Khasra No. 23/8/1, 8/2, 9/2, 12/2 and 13/1 in 
village Sahaul, Tehsil and District Gurgaon and .25 acres ofland falling 
I Khasra No. 23/10/1 in the same village has been rejected. 
3. Placing reliance on the letter of the Finance Minister ofHaryana, 
for releasing lands coming under Lal Dora, the appellants approached 
the High Powered Committee, It appears that the High Powered 
Committee turned down the request on the ground that possession of 
the property had already been taken, pursuant to Award passed on 
12.3.2004 and that the same had already been handed over to Haryana 
Urban Development Authority (in short 'the HUDA'). That decision of 
the High Powered Committee was challenged before the High Court 
leading to the impugned judgments. 
4. The High Court endorsed the view taken by the High Powered 
Committee and has held that once the acquired land has already been 
taken possession of, there is no question ofrelease under Section 48 of 
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act'). 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
408 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State sought to establish 
that the land had already been taken possession of, by inviting our attention 
· to the order passed by the High Powered Committee on 28.3.2008, 
wherein it is stated as follows :-
"8. In fact the petitioner had two pockets ofland measuring 1.23 
acres falling in Khasra No. 23/8/1, 8/2, 9/2, 12/2, 13/1and0.25 
acres falling in Khasra No. 23/1 Oil. The applicants had applied · 
for change of land use of these khasra numbers for setting up of 
information technology unit on 5.12.2005 in the office of Director, 
Town and Country Planning. The said ap
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.