2001 JTR(SC) 1121
2001 AIR(SC) 3285 ; 2001 AIR(SCW) 3322 ; 2001 5 ALD(SC) 133 ; 2001 45 AllLR 1 ; 2001 4 AllMR(SC) 515 ; 2001 4 AWC 2778 ; 2001 4 CivLJ 521 ; 2001 DNJ 417 ; 2001 4 ICC 118 ; 2001 2 JLJR(SC) 783 ; 2001 6 JT 578 ; 2001 2 PLJ 367 ; 2001 4 RCR(Civ) 258 ; 2001 5 Scale 352 ; 2001 7 SCC 545 ; 2001 6 SLT 16 ; 2002 1 UJ 224 ; 2001 KHC 1161 ; 2001 6 Supreme 278
2001(6) Supreme 278
Supreme Court of India
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
A.P. Misra and D.P. Mohapatra, JJ.
Sube Singh and Ors. —Appellants
versus
State of Haryana & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5516 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 585 of 1999)
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 5517-5530 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11722-11723 of 1999, SLP (C) No. 2199/2000, SLP (C) No. 18228/1999, SLP (C) Nos. 3351-3352/2000, SLP (C) No. 4857/2000 & SLP (C) No. 12089/2000, SLP (C) No. 16786/1999, SLP (C) No. 16822/1999, SLP (C) Nos. 17971-17973/1999 and SLP (C) No. 13954/2001 )
Decided on 17-8-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Mr. Sushil Kr., Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, Ms. K. Amareshwari, Sr. Advocates, Mr. Sanjay Jain, Mr. Goodwill Indeevar, Mr. B.S. Jain, Mr. Ajay Veer Singh, Mr. B.S. Mor, Mr. N. Sreedhar, Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Ms. Shilpa Chohan, Mr. Suresh C. Gupta, Mrs. Lalita Kaushik, Mr. Naresh Kumar, Mr. Ramesh Kumar Saini, Mr. A.P. Vinod, Mr. V.K. Jain, Mr. M.K. Michael, Mrs. Nandini Gore, Ms. Shashi Kiran, Mr. Virender Kumar Sharma, Mrs. Amita Gupta and Mr. Mahabir Singh, Advocates.
Important Point
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the rejection of the request of the appellants for exclusion of their land having structures on them is arbitrary and discriminatory. Respondent-1 is directed to consider the request again in accordance with law.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.14
LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.6, S.4, S.5(a)
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, sections 4, 5(a), 5A, 6, and 9, together with the constitutional mandate of Article 14, govern the procedure and validity of land acquisition initiated by a public authority. Section 4 authorizes the government to publish a notification of intended acquisition, Section 5(a) requires the issuance of a declaration upon publication, Section 5A obliges the authority to provide an opportunity of hearing to affected parties on their objections, Section 6 validates the acquisition upon fulfillment of prior procedures, and Section 9 empowers the government to recover the amount payable. The present cases involve challenges to a notification issued under Section 4 read with Section 6 of the Act, where objections filed under Section 5A were rejected on the ground of existing structures, leading to claims of non-compliance with hearing requirements and arbitrary, discriminatory decision-making contrary to Article 14.
(B) Key legal principles include the mandatory requirement of providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing under Section 5A, the necessity of non-discriminatory and rational classification under Article 14, the validity of land acquisition for planned development purposes, and the principle that acquisition of land with structures is not barred, provided procedural safeguards are followed.
Facts of the case:
The State of Haryana issued a notification dated 26th May, 1995 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquiring approximately 193.37 acres of land in Bahadurgarh for residential, industrial, and commercial development by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. Appellants, claiming ownership or occupation of parts of the notified land, filed objections under Section 5A challenging the notification on grounds including denial of proper hearing, non-application of mind, and discriminatory treatment based on the classification of their structures as 'B' or 'C' class while other lands with structures were excluded. The Land Acquisition Collector recommended exclusion of the appellants' lands, but the State Government rejected these recommendations, relying on the classification of construction quality. Notifications under Sections 6 and 9 were subsequently issued. The appellants approached the High Court, which allowed some petitions and dismissed others, finding that while some appellants were denied a reasonable hearing, the rejection of exclusion requests was otherwise justified.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found that the appellants were denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing under Section 5A in certain cases, and held that the State Government's rejection of exclusion requests was arbitrary and discriminatory. The Court observed that the classification of structures into 'A', 'B', and 'C' classes lacked a rational basis and was not supported by evidence, especially since lands with similar structures were excluded in other instances. The High Court was also faulted for failing to adequately address the discrimination in treatment. The Court emphasized that acquisition for planned development cannot justify unequal treatment when the purpose affects both residential and commercial interests in the same area.
Issues:
Whether the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was valid when objections under Section 5A were not properly considered. Whether the rejection of exclusion requests for lands with structures was discriminatory and arbitrary in violation of Article 14. Whether the classification of structures into 'A', 'B', and 'C' classes was reasonable and supported by intelligible differentia.
Ratio Decidendi:
The State Government must provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to objectors under Section 5A and must exercise powers of classification in a non-arbitrary, rational manner under Article 14. Acquisition for development purposes does not permit discriminatory treatment; if some lands with structures are excluded, similar lands cannot be acquired without just and equal grounds, and the government must place material on classification criteria.
Result:
The appeals are allowed. The impugned notifications under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act are quashed. The State Government is directed to reconsider the exclusion petitions in accordance with the judgment, provide hearing opportunities, and complete the exercise within three months, without awarding costs.
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, sections 4, 5(a), 5A, 6, and 9, together with the constitutional mandate of Article 14, govern the procedure and validity of land acquisition initiated by a public authority. Section 4 authorizes the government to publish a notification of intended acquisition, Section 5(a) requires the issuance of a declaration upon publication, Section 5A obliges the authority to provide an opportunity of hearing to affected parties on their objections, Section 6 validates the acquisition upon fulfillment of prior procedures, and Section 9 empowers the government to recover the amount payable. The present cases involve challenges to a notification issued under Section 4 read with Section 6 of the Act, where objections filed under Section 5A were rejected on the ground of existing structures, leading to claims of non-compliance with hearing requirements and arbitrary, discriminatory decision-making contrary to Article 14.
(B) Key legal principles include the mandatory requirement of providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing under Section 5A, the necessity of non-discriminatory and rational classification under Article 14, the validity of land acquisition for planned development purposes, and the principle that acquisition of land with structures is not barred, provided procedural safeguards are followed.
Facts of the case:
The State of Haryana issued a notification dated 26th May, 1995 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquiring approximately 193.37 acres of land in Bahadurgarh for residential, industrial, and commercial development by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. Appellants, claiming ownership or occupation of parts of the notified land, filed objections under Section 5A challenging the notification on grounds including denial of proper hearing, non-application of mind, and discriminatory treatment based on the classification of their structures as 'B' or 'C' class while other lands with structures were excluded. The Land Acquisition Collector recommended exclusion of the appellants' lands, but the State Government rejected these recommendations, relying on the classification of construction quality. Notifications under Sections 6 and 9 were subsequently issued. The appellants approached the High Court, which allowed some petitions and dismissed others, finding that while some appellants were denied a reasonable hearing, the rejection of exclusion requests was otherwise justified.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found that the appellants were denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing under Section 5A in certain cases, and held that the State Government's rejection of exclusion requests was arbitrary and discriminatory. The Court observed that the classification of structures into 'A', 'B', and 'C' classes lacked a rational basis and was not supported by evidence, especially since lands with similar structures were excluded in other instances. The High Court was also faulted for failing to adequately address the discrimination in treatment. The Court emphasized that acquisition for planned development cannot justify unequal treatment when the purpose affects both residential and commercial interests in the same area.
Issues:
Whether the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was valid when objections under Section 5A were not properly considered. Whether the rejection of exclusion requests for lands with structures was discriminatory and arbitrary in violation of Article 14. Whether the classification of structures into 'A', 'B', and 'C' classes was reasonable and supported by intelligible differentia.
Ratio Decidendi:
The State Government must provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to objectors under Section 5A and must exercise powers of classification in a non-arbitrary, rational manner under Article 14. Acquisition for development purposes does not permit discriminatory treatment; if some lands with structures are excluded, similar lands cannot be acquired without just and equal grounds, and the government must place material on classification criteria.
Result:
The appeals are allowed. The impugned notifications under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act are quashed. The State Government is directed to reconsider the exclusion petitions in accordance with the judgment, provide hearing opportunities, and complete the exercise within three months, without awarding costs.
Judgment
D.P. Mohapatra , J.—Leave granted.
2. These appeals filed by the writ petitioners are directed against the judgment rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 13th August, 1998 in which eight writ petitions filed by the appellants and others were decided. Six out of the eight writ petition, Nos. 4955, 6036, 4091, 8059, 5994 and 5174 of 1997 were dismissed while Writ Petition Nos. 5160 and 6012 of 1997 were allowed and the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), insofar as it related to the petitioners in those two cases was quashed.
3. The High Court by a separate judgment rendered on 8.4.1999 dismissed eight other similar writ petitions Nos. 16399/96, 15228, 15549 of 1997, 403, 3524, 3677, 4752 & 15511 of 1998. In another judgment rendered on 17.2.2000 the High Court dismissed the Civil Writ Petition No. 8275/1997.
4. Since the relevant facts and the grounds of challenge against the judgments are similar in all these cases they are being disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience we shall refer to the facts in the first batch of cases referred to above.
5. The State of Haryana issued the notification dated 26th May, 1995 under Section 4 of the Act expressing its intention to acquire an area of 193.37 acres for the purpose of development, utilisation for residential, industrial and commercial purposes for pocket of Sectors 1 & 2 in the Town Bahadurgarh, district Rohtak by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. The appellants claiming to be the owners/occupiers of certain lands proposed to be acquired filed their objections against the acquisition under Section 5A of the Act. They questioned the validity of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on several grounds including non-compliance with the mandatory provisions regarding publication of the notification giving wide publicity in the locality, denial of opportunity of personal hearing under Section 5A of the Act, non-application of mind by the concerned authorities on the points, taken in the objection petitions filed by them that they had built structures for residential and/or commercial purposes on the lands owned by them and according to the policy decision of the State Government such lands are to be excluded from acquisition. The Land Acquisition Collector considering the objection petitions filed by the appellants, other than appellant No. 2 –Ram Kumar Gupta, recommended to the State Government for exclusion of the lands on the ground that there were structures standing on the same. The State Government, however, did not accept the recommendation and stood by the decision to acquire the land with the structures thereon. Notifications were issued under Sections 6 and 9 of the Act in due course.
6. In the writ petitions filed by the appellants the objections taken before the Land Acquisition Collector were reiterated and the High Court’s intervention was sought for releasing the lands on the ground of invalidity of the Notification under Section 6 of the Act and also on the ground for exclusion of the land with structures from acquisition.
7. The High Court, on examination of the records produced before it and on consideration of the contentions raised by counsel appearing for the parties, rejected the contention relating to denial of opportunity of hearing on the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5A of the Act excepting the two writ petitions noted earlier in which the Court held that reasonable opportunity of hearing had not been granted to the petitioners. Regarding the contention of release of the lands with structures thereon from acquisition the High Court was not inclined to accept the same holding that there is no bar under the Act or in any law for acquisition of land with a structure standing on it, by the State Government. On these findings the High Court allowed the two writ petitions and dismissed the other six petitions as noted earlier. It is relevant to note here that the High Court had noted the contention on behalf of the petitioners that some other land included in the notification on which there stood built up structures have been excluded by the State Government while the writ petitioners were not extended similar treatment, but neither discussed the point nor recorded a finding on the same.
8. The main thrust of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants in these appeals was that the decision of the State Government not to accept the prayer of the petitioners for exclusion of their property from acquisition is arbitrary and discriminatory inasmuch as in the case of owners of other lands lying within the area notified who had sought exclusion of their property on the ground of existing structures the prayer was accepted and the lands were excluded from acquisition. The learned counsel for the appellants referring to the map showing different plots with structures in the area notified pointed out how lands lying close to the lands of the appellants have been excluded from acquisition while the prayer of the appellants has been turned down.
9. Shri Mahabir Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana contended that the request of the appellants for exclusion of their property from acquisition was not accepted since the constructions on their lands were either ‘B’ class or ‘C’ class constructions whereas the lands which were excluded from the acquisition had ‘A’ class constructions on them. This contention was also refuted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the ground that no such principle was followed uniformly and some of the appellants had pucca structures having the quality of ‘A’ class construction.
10. In the counter and the note of submission filed on behalf of the appellants it is averred, inter alia, that the Land Acquisition Collector on considering the objections filed by the appellants had recommended to the State Government for exclusion of the properties of appellants 1 and 3 to 6 and the State Government had not accepted such recommendations only on the ground that the constructions made by the appellants were of ‘B’ or ‘C’ class and could not be easily amalgamated into the developed colony which was proposed to be built. There is no averment in the pleadings of the respondents stating the basis of classification of structures as ‘A’ ‘B’ and ‘C’ class, nor is it stated how the amalgamation of all ‘A’ class structures was feasible and possible while those of ‘B’ and ‘C’ class structures was not possible. It is not the case of the State Government and also not argued before us that there is no policy decision of the Government for excluding the lands having structures thereon from acquisition under the Act. Indeed, as noted earlier, in these cases the State Government has accepted the request of some land owners for exclusion of their properties on this very ground. It remains to be seen whether the purported classification of existing structures into ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ class is a reasonable classification having an intelligible differentia and a rational basis germane to the purpose. If the State Government fails to support its action on the touch-stone of the above principle then this decision has to be held as arbitrary and discriminatory. It is relevant to note here that the acquisition of the lands is for the purpose of planned development of the area which includes both residential and commercial purposes. That being the purpose of acquisition it is difficult to accept the case of the State Government that certain types of structures which according to its own classification are of ‘A’ class can be allowed to remain while other structures situated in close vicinity and being used for same purposes (residential or commercial) should be demolished. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated here that no material was placed, before us to show the basis of classification of the existing structures on the lands proposed to be acquired. This assumes importance in view of the specific contention raised on behalf of the appellants that they have pucca structures with R.C. roofing, Mozaic flooring etc. No attempt was also made from the side of the State Government to place any architectural plan of different types of structures proposed to be constructed on the land notified for acquisition in support of its contention that the structures which exist on the lands of the appellants could not be amalgamated into the plan.
11. On the facts and circumstances of the case revealed from the records, we are persuaded to accept the contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the rejection of the request of the appellants for exclusion of their land having structures on them was not based on a fair and reasonable consideration of the matter. We are of the view that such action of the Government is arbitrary and discriminatory. Unfortunately, the High Court failed to judge the cases in its proper perspective.
12. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The judgments under challenge are set aside, the orders passed by the State Government rejecting the representation of the appellants are quashed. The Secretary, Urban Estates Department, State of Haryana, respondent No. 1 herein, is directed to consider the objection petitions filed by the appellants for exclusion of their properties from the acquisition and pass appropriate order excluding such lands having structures on them excepting any land which is required for construction of a road or hospital. Respondent No.1 shall give opportunity of hearing to the appellants before taking the decision. The exercise shall be completed expeditiously if possible within three months. There will, however, be no order for costs.
(N.K.R.) Appeals allowed accordingly.
***************