LexSTATE OF HARYANA& ORS. versus M/S. VINOD OIL& GENERAL MILLS &ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 13 S.C.R. 524 STATE OF HARYANA& ORS. V. M/S. VINOD OIL& GENERAL MILLS &ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos. 9098-9099 of 2014) SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 [T. S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4 and 6 -Acquisition c of industrial land - For the residential and commercial purpose - The acquired strip of land measuring 19 mar/as is contiguous to the factory and can be adjusted in the Planning Scheme and hence acquisition thereof is quashed -Anbther strip measuring 1 Kanai 11 mar/as is hindrance D for the wholesome development of the scheme, hence acquisition thereof upheld- In view of s. 24(2) of Acquisition Act of 2013, matter remitted to High Court to examine certain factual aspects - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, E Resettlement Act, 2013- s. 24(2). Public Purpose- Meaning and determination of- Held: A public purpose includes a purpose involving general interest of community as opposed to individual interest - F State is the first judge to determine whether there exists public purpose. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The action of the State in first approving G setting up of a factory and then acquiring the same cannot be held as unreasonable. Permission for change of land use and developing the area as an industry, has no relevance while considering the validity of ac~uisition. The fact that the factory and building was H 524 STATE OF HARYANA v. M/S. VINOD OIL & GENERAL 525 MILLS put up in the lands with the approval of the authority A cannot be a bar for acquisition of the land. Public interest overrides individual's interests. The only effect of permission for such change in land use and approval for construction and developing the area as an industry can be recognized as valid only to the extent as to B confer right upon the land owners to recover the appropriate compensation. [Paras 7, 8][530-D; F-H; 531-A-B] 2. Public purpose includes a purpose involving c general interest of community as opposed to the interest of an individual directly or indirectly involved. Individual interest must give way to public interest as far as public purpose in respect of acquisition of land is concerned. Prima facie, State is the first Judge to determine whether D there exists public purpose or not. But the decision of the State is not beyond judicial scrutiny. The requirement of land for residential and commercial purposes and for development of the Sector involves in it an element of general interest of the community and hence, must be E regarded as a 'public purpose' as opposed to the particular interest of individuals. [Paras 9, 11 and 12] [531-D-E; 533-E; 534-C-D] Dau/at Singh Surana & Ors. v. First Land F Acquisition Collector&· Ors. 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 1076 : (2007) 1 SCC 641; Sooraram Pratap Reddy & Ors. v. Distt. Collector, Ranga Reddy Dist. & Ors. 2008 (13) SCR 126: (2008) 9 SCC 552 - relied on. G 3. There is no bar to the subsequent acquisition of the land nor is there a bar for issuance of successive notification for acquisition of the land. In the present case, earlier notification was issued for the same H 526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R. A purpose for which subsequent acquisition was made. B The subsequent acquisition was done, when the State felt that the land sought to be acquired cannot be adjusted in the development of the Plan. [Para 15] [535-C-E] Roshan Lal & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 2003 (3) PLR 199 - referred to. 4. Khasra No. 148/2/2, which is contiguous to the factory of the respondents, can be adjusted in the C Planning Scheme of the Sector and on this ground, the order of quashing the acquisition thereof is affirmed. Insofar as another strip of 1 Kanai 11 Marla of land is concerned this strip of land is hindrance for the D wholesome development of the Sector and the same cannot be adjusted in the development of the Sector. Order of quashing acquisition of this strip of land is upheld. [Paras 16, 17][536-B-F] 5. In view of the plea that by virtue of Section 24 (2) E of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, ResettlementAct, 2013 the subject of acquisition shall be deemed to have lapsed, certain factual aspects viz., (i) whether F possession of the land measuring 1Kanai11 Marlas has been taken or not; (ii) whether the compensation in respect of this acquired la
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.