UDDAR GAGAN PROPERTIES LTD. versus SANT SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 214 · Decided: 13-05-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 214 
UDDAR GAGAN PROPERTIES LTD. 
v. 
SANT SINGH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5072 of2016) 
MAY13,2016 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Acquisition of land of original 
owners-farmers for public purpose - issuance of acquisition 
notification - Subsequently, builder entered into agreements with 
some farmers whose land was under acquisition - Release of land 
in favour of builder - Challenge to - Held: Power of the State to 
acquire land for a public purpose has been used to facilitate transfer 
of title of the land of original owners to a private builder to advance 
the business interest of the said builder, which is npt legally 
permissible - Acquisition of land is for a private company without 
D 
following the statutory procedure for the said purpose - Entertaining 
application for· release of land in favour of the builder who came 
into picture after acquisition notification and release of land to 
such builder amounts to permitting profiteering at the cost of 
livelihood and existence of a farmer - State enabled the builder to 
E 
F 
G 
H 
enter the field after initiation of acquisition to seek colonization on 
the land covered by acquisition - Such fraudulent and clandestine 
exercise of power by the State is not permitted by law - It is in 
violation of Public Trust Doctrine - High Court rightly held that 
there was abuse of power in releasing land in favour of builder -
Notifications and awards in favour of original owners upheld -
Land covered thereby vests in the Development Authority free from . 
all encumbrances - Release orders in favour of the builder quashed 
- Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, 
Partly disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 There is no reason to disagree with the finding 
recorded by the High Court that the instant case is a gross abuse 
of law on account of unholy nexus of the foncerned authorities 
and· the builder to enable the builder to profiteer. The land could 
either be taken by State for a eompelling public purpose or 
returned to the land owners and not to the builder. [Para 13] 
(235-C] 
214 
UDDAR GAGAN PROPERTIES LTD. v. SANT SINGH 
215 • 
1.2 There could be no objection to acquisition of land for a 
A 
co11.1pelling public purpose nor to regulated development of 
colonies, but entertaining an application for.releasing of land in 
favour of the builder who comes into picture after acquisition 
notification and release of land to such builder tantamounts to 
acquisition for a private purpose. It amounts to transfer of B 
resources of poor for the benefit of the rich .. It amounts to 
permitting profiteering at the cost of livelihood and existence of 
a farmer. T.his is against the philosophy of the Constitution and in. 
violation of guaranteed fundamental rights of equality and right 
to property and to life. What cannot be done directly cannot be 
done indirectly also. [Para 14] 
(235~D-E] 
C 
1.3 This apart, if State is to be party to directly or indirectly 
select beneficiary of State.largesse - which in instant fact situation 
the State certainly is - objectivity and transparency are essential 
elements of exercise of public power which are required to be 
followed. It is patent that the State has enabled the builder to 
enter the field after initiation of acquisition to seek colonization 
on the land covered by acquisition. Id absence of State's action, 
it was not possible for the builder to enter into the transactions 
in question which was follo,wed by withdrawal from acquisition. 
But for assurance from some quarters, the builder could not have 
made investment nor land owners could have executed the 
transactions in question. Such fraudulent and clandestine exercise 
of power by the State is not permitted by law. This is in violation 
of Public Trust Doctrine.[Para 15] (235-F-H] 
D 
E 
F 
1.4 Reliance on .Pol.icy dated 6th March, 2000 is 
misconceived. The policy is applicable only to release of such 
land from acquisition as is owned/ purchased by the developers 
before the issue of notification under Section 4 of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894. This condition was required to be strictly 
·complied with and no person other than original owners prior to 
acquisition could directly or indirectly avail of the said policy. 
G 
Even a bona fide error .could not justify a patent illegality. In the 
instant case, the builder itself did not have even an inch of land 
before the notificat

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