STATE OF HARYANA versus EROS CITY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 242 · Decided: 19-01-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
[2016] I S.C.R. 242 
STATE OF HARYANA 
v. 
EROS CITY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 354 of 2016 etc.) 
B 
JANUARY 19, 2016 
c 
D 
E 
F 
(RANJAN GOGOi AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: ss.4 and 6 -
Acquisition 
Notification of land measuring 172 kanals 19 mar/as in village 
Lakarpur, District F aridabad - Out of that 129 kanals 14 mar las 
owned by respondent no.I - Purpose of acquisition was expansion 
and systematic development of Surajkund Tourist Complex - High 
Court quashed the Notification - High Court also applied the equity 
doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation in 
favour of respondent no. I - On State's appeal, held: The land in 
question was under acquisition in 1992 but proceedings were 
dropped after Supreme Court's order in M.C. Mehta's case - In 
1993, respondent no.I purchased the said land - In 1998, the 
authorities were directed to consider the plan of hotel project 
submitted by respondent no. 1 -
Fresh acquisition proceedings 
initiated by the State - High Court has erred in quashing the 
acquisition of land in question by applying doctrine of promissory 
estoppel and legitimate expectation in the facts of the present case 
- The purpose i.e. for expansion and systematic development of 
Surajkund Tourist Complex is a public purpose - It included 
development of parking area adjacent to the Surajkund Tourist 
Complex near annual Surajkund Fair - High Court was incorrect 
in holding that the State has not acted bonafide after 1992 
acquisition proceedings were dropped - Earlier proceedings were 
dropped in the light of M.C. Mehta's case in 1996 restraining 
construction in the area and after modification in the said order in 
G 
1998, the State took fresh decision to acquire the land for public 
purpose and there was no illegality in the same. 
H 
Sooraram Pratap Reddy and Others v. District Collector, 
Ranga Reddy District and others 2008 (13) SCR 126 : 
(2008) 9 SCC 552; State of Haryana and Others vs. 
Vinod Oil and General Mills and Another (2014) 15 
242 
STATE OF HARYANA v. EROS CITY DEVELOPERS P. LTD. 
SCC 410; A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. M. V. Nayudu 
(Retd.) and Others 2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 249 : (2001) 
2 SCC 62; Monnet !spat and Energy Limited v. Union 
of India and Others 2012 (7) SCR 644 ; (2012) 11 SCC 
1; Hira Tikkoo v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and 
Others 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 65 : (2004) 6 SCC 765 -
relied on. 
M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors. Supreme Court's 
judgment passed in W.P. (C) No. 4677 of 1985 on 
10.05.1993 by - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
2008 (13} SCR 126 
relied on. 
para9 
(2014) 15 sec 410 
relied on. 
para 11 
2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 249 
relied on. 
para 12 
2012 (7) SCR 644 
relied on. 
para 13 
2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 65 
relied on. 
para 14 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 354 of 
2016. 
243 
A 
B 
c 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.01.2008 of the Division 
E 
Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP 
No. 10611 of2004. 
WITH 
C. A. NO. 355 OF 2016 
Arun Bhardwaj,AAG, Jai Wadhwa, Ronak Karanpuria, Dr. Monika 
Gusain, U gra Shankar Prasad for the Appellant. 
Shyam Divan, Akhil Sibal, Malini Sud, Vidhi Goel, Priya Deep, 
Sagun, Umesh Kumar Khaitan, Naresh Bakshi for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. I. Leave granted in both the special 
leave petitions. 
F 
G 
2. These appeals are directed against judgment and order dated 
21.01.2008, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil 
Writ Petition No. 10611 of 2004 whereby said Court has quashed the 
H 
244 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
notifications dated 08.10.2003 and 07.05.2004 issued under Sections 4 
and 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, respectively, by the State ofHaryana 
regarding acquisition of land measuring 129 kanals 14 marlas in village 
Lakarpur, District Faridabad. The High Court has further quashed the 
Award dated 05.05.2006, passed by respondent No. 4 in respect of land 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
owned by respondent No. 1 Eros City Developers Pvt. Ltd., which was 
acquired through the above mentioned notifications. 
3. Succinctly stated total area of 172 kanals 19 marlas situated in 
village Lakharpur Tehsil Ballabgarh in District Faridabad was proposed 
to be acquired by the State of Haryana through notification dated 
08.10.2003 issued under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 out of 
which 129 kanals
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.