Seeking release of the land from the process of acquisition is not considered favourably. = writ petition filed before the High Court was in a certiorari proceeding, it was necessary for the High Court to secure the records and consider as to whether the possession had been validly taken and handed over to HUDA as claimed. Further whether in the layout plan as referred in the order dated 11.10.2014 impugned in the writ petition, the very item of land belonging to the appellants was reserved for the institutional plot, green belt and parking areas as claimed and as to whether the surrounding area had been developed by HUDA by forming the residential plots was also to be considered, though not in the nature of an appeal, but to satisfy itself on perusal of relevant records. The further contention on behalf of the appellants is that in respect of the very same layout this Court in the case of Patasi Devi Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2012) 9 SCC 503 has directed that the land involved therein be released. It is no doubt seen that in the said case the appellant who was the owner of the land which was acquired had constructed a house and in that light there being no document to indicate that the possession was taken over by putting a lock, it was held that the possession was not taken. Though that be the position it is also indicated that the case of the appellant therein was required to be considered in the same manner as was done in the case of M/s Sharad Farm and Holdings (P) Ltd. Apart from the said decision which relates to the very same layout, the learned counsel for the appellants has also relied on the decision in the case of Hari Ram & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 621 wherein with reference to the Policy dated 26.10.2007 it is indicated that the similar land owners should receive a similar consideration when representation is made for deletion.

NON REPORTABLE
             
   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
   CIVIL APPEAL NO.     7317   OF 2019
   (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.3213 of 2016)
Krishan Chander & Anr.                .…Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors.           ….  Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
A.S. Bopanna,J.
       
       Leave granted.   
2.     The appellants are before this Court assailing the
order dated 21.10.2015 passed by the High Court for the
States of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No.22656/2015.
The said writ Petition was disposed of along with the writ
petition   bearing   CWP.No.22652   and   22653   of   2015
through a common order.   Through the said order the
case sought to be made out by the appellants seeking

Page 1 of 15
release of the land from the process of acquisition is not
considered favourably.  The writ petitions are accordingly
dismissed by the High Court.
3. The brief facts are that the lands bearing Khasra
No.19/2, 9 measuring 16 kanal situated in Village Para,
District Rohtak, to which the appellants’ claim that their
father was the owner, among other lands of several other
land owners was acquired for development of Sector 36,
Rohtak   by   issuing   the   Notification   dated   15.12.2006
issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(‘L.A. Act’ for short).  The final declaration under Section
6 was issued on 14.12.2007.   The appellants contend
that the land has not been utilised for the purpose for
which it was acquired and in respect of several other
lands acquired for the same purpose, it has been deleted
from the process of acquisition and as such the lands
belonging   to   the   appellants   also   be   deleted.     In   that
regard   the   appellants,   at   the   first   instance,   had
approached   the   High   Court   through   CWP.No.5836   of
2014.  The said writ petition was disposed of through the

Page 2 of 15
order   dated   27.03.2014   whereby   the   High   Court   on
taking note of the contentions had issued direction to the
respondents to verify the claim of the appellants and on
objective   consideration   of   the   whole   matter   if   the
authorities are of the view that there is no likelihood of
utilisation of the appellants’ land for any public purpose,
consider the desirability  of releasing the same subject to
the condition that the compensation if any received be
refunded.     Pursuant   thereto   the   representation   dated
20.02.2014   which   had   already   been   made   by   the
appellants   was   taken   note   and   an   order   dated
10.11.2014   was   passed   by   the   Secretary­cum­Director
General,   Urban   Estates   Department   Haryana,   rejected
the claim of the appellants.  Against such rejection, the
appellants   were   before   the   High  Court   in  the   present
round of litigation assailing the order dated 10.11.2014
which has led to the instant appeal.   The respondents
through the counter affidavit filed herein on behalf of the
respondent No.2 have opposed the instant appeal.

Page 3 of 15
4. Heard Shri J.B. Mudgil, learned counsel for the
appellants,   Shri   B.K.   Satija   learned   counsel   for   the
respondents and perused the appeal papers.
5. As noticed the claim put forth on behalf of the
appellants is that the land bearing Khewat No.599/553
Khatoni   No.671,   Killa   No.19/2   (8­0)   and   9(8­0)   total
measuring 16­0 situated within the Revenue Estate of
Mouza Para, Hadbast No.67, Tehsil and District Rohtak
though   sought   to   be   acquired   under   the   Notification
dated 15.12.2006 and 14.12.2007 for forming the Sector
36 layout, the said land has not been utilised.   In that
regard seeking release of unutilised and unused land the
appellants   had   made   the   representation   dated
20.02.2014.     Since   the   request   made   through   the
representation   is   rejected   through   the   order   dated
10.11.2014   the   writ   petition   bearing   C.W.P.
No.22656/2015 was filed which is dismissed.  A perusal
of the order dated 21.10.2015 passed by the High Court
would disclose that the High Court, having taken note
that the impugned order discloses that while considering

Page 4 of 15
the representation the State Government has found that
the   land   was   vacant   at   the   time   of   publication   of
Notification under Section 4 of the Act and it is still lying
vacant,   the   release   in   view   of   the   Policy   dated
26.10.2007, modified on 24.01.2011 is not tenable since
the said policy pertains to release of land over which the
residential   buildings   have   been     constructed.     Taking
note   of   the   same   the   High   Court   has   dismissed   the
petition without any further consideration.
6. At the outset, it is necessary to take note that the
writ   petition   was   dismissed   at   the   threshold   without
directing notice to the respondents and considering the
grievance   of   the   appellants   in   the   backdrop   of   the
contention urged.  In a normal circumstance we do not
find that there would be any impediment to dispose of at
the threshold.   However, in the present facts we notice
that the order dated 10.11.2014 which was impugned
before the High Court was an order which was passed
pursuant to the direction issued in earlier order dated
27.03.2014   passed   by   the   High   Court   in   CWP

Page 5 of 15
No.5836/2014.  In the said writ petition the High Court
had taken note of the grievance that had been put forth
by the appellants that the respondents had acquired the
land much more than what was needed for the notified
public purpose and after utilisation of such land for the
said public purpose, a substantial part of the acquired
land is lying unutilised.  It was also taken note that the
appellants had averred that they are still in possession of
the land as is evident from the entries in the Revenue
record and the photographs.   Having taken note of the
case put forth, the Court had also observed that the High
Court has already taken a view in another matter that
the acquisition of land in excess to what is needed for a
bonafide   public   purpose   is   also   detrimental   to   public
interest as it would be an unwarranted burden on the
State Exchequer.   Having observed so, the High Court
had indicated that the question as to whether or not the
appellant’s unutilised land is still needed for a bonafide
public purpose has to be essentially determined by the
authorities only.  It is in that light a direction had been
issued for consideration of the representation.

Page 6 of 15
7. In that background a perusal of the order dated
10.11.2014 impugned in the present writ petition bearing
CWP.No.22656/2015 would disclose that the competent
authority has noted that as per the fresh site survey, the
land   of   the   appellants   is   lying   vacant.     It   is   further
observed that as per the layout plan of Sector 36 which is
approved,   the   appellants’   land   has   been   planned   for
institutional plot, green belt and parking area.   In that
circumstance,   it   is   stated   that   the   C.A.,   HUDA   has
recommended not to release any land in favour of the
appellants.  In that circumstance when presently the said
order had been assailed in the writ petition challenging
its   correctness,   that   too   when   such   order   had   been
passed pursuant to the direction issued earlier by the
High Court, a deeper examination was required by the
High   Court   after   calling   for   objections   from   the
respondents.
8. It is no doubt true that presently in the instant
appeal before this Court the respondents have filed their
objection statement and have sought to contend that the

Page 7 of 15
land is required for the purpose of the layout; that the
land   in   question   being   vacant   land   and   since   the
appellants had not filed the objections under Section 5­A
of the L.A. Act the consideration for deletion under the
Policy does not arise.  Relying on objection statement the
learned   counsel   for   the   respondents   has   vehemently
contended that the possession of the land has been taken
under ‘Rapat Roznamcha’ on 09.12.2009.   Reference to
the same is made indicating that out of the 88.24 acres of
which possession was taken the land bearing No.19/2 of
the appellants also forms a part.   To contend that the
possession being taken by drawing a Panchnama is the
approved mode of taking possession, the learned counsel
has relied upon on the decisions in the case of Sita Ram
Bhandar Society, New Delhi vs. Lieutenant Governor,
Government of NCT, Delhi & Ors. (2009) 10 SCC 501;
in   the   case   of  M.   Venkatesh   vs.   Commissioner,
Bangalore   Development   Authority  (2015)   17   SCC   1
and in the case of  Indore  Development  Authority  vs.
Shailendra (2018) 3 SCC 412.

Page 8 of 15
9. The   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents   has
further relied on the decision in the case of V. Chandra
Sekaran and Anr. vs. Administrative Officer  & Ors.
2012   (12)   SCC   133   to   contend   that   the   land   once
acquired cannot be restored even if not used.   At this
stage itself it is necessary to be noticed that the said
decision was in the circumstance where a subsequent
purchaser had approached the Court and further in the
instant case a policy is adopted by the respondents for
release of land and appellant is seeking consideration on
parity which is a matter for consideration one way or the
other.
10. The   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants,   on   the
other hand, contended that the Panchnama drawn for
taking possession was not at the spot and in that regard
has   relied   on   the   decision   in   the   case   of  Banda
Development Authority, Banda vs. Moti Lal Agarwal
and Ors. 2011 (5) SCC 394.  In that background though
the fact of taking possession would become relevant in a
circumstance to de­notify the land in terms of Section 48

Page 9 of 15
of the L.A. Act,   the other aspects of the matter would
also arise herein, in view of the nature of consideration
made by the High Court in the earlier round and in that
background   the   correctness   of   the   impugned   order
passed by the competent authority dated 10.11.2014 was
to be noted in the present round of litigation.  In so far as
the   contention   urged   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the
respondents   that   the   appellants   had   entered   into   a
collaboration   agreement   with   M/s   Sharad   Farm   and
Holdings     (P)     Ltd.   on   23.04.2007   after   issuance   of
Notification   under   Section   4   of   the   L.A.   Act   and   has
received a sum of Rs.28,20,000/­ from them, the same
would have arisen for consideration and denial of relief at
the   threshold  only  if  the   said  M/s  Sharad  Farm  and
Holding  (P) Ltd based on such collaboration agreement
had  approached  the  Court  seeking for  deletion of  the
land.  In the instant proceedings the appellants being the
owners of the notified land are seeking deletion and the
validity of such agreement would be an inter­se issue. 

Page 10 of 15
11. Though the respondents have further contended
that the Policy for deletion provide for consideration only
if objections under Section 5­A is filed and it is contended
that no such objection was filed by the appellants, the
representation dated 20.02.2014 (Annexure P.1) filed by
the appellants indicates that the appellants have stated
therein that the applicants have filed objections under
Section 5­A of the L.A. Act to the proposed acquisition.
Though at this stage we are not in a position to determine
the correctness of the contrary rival contentions that is
also one of the aspects which required consideration by
the High Court to come to a conclusion as to whether the
benefit of the policy is available.  Further the Notification
for acquisition was issued far back as on 15.12.2006.
The consideration pursuant  to  the  earlier order  dated
27.03.2014 passed in CWP No. 5836/2014 was made by
the competent authority on 10.11.2014.  Even as on that
day, admittedly the lands belonging to the appellants is
kept vacant though the competent authority states that
in the layout plan of Sector 36 the lands of the appellants
is kept for institutional plot, green belt and parking area.

Page 11 of 15
The appellants on the other hand by relying on the layout
plan  of  sector  36  produced  before this  Court  seek  to
contend   that   the   lands   surrounding   the   lands   of   the
appellants has been released.
12. In the backdrop of such contentions and keeping
in view that the writ petition filed before the High Court
was in a certiorari proceeding, it was necessary for the
High   Court   to   secure   the   records   and   consider   as   to
whether   the   possession   had   been   validly   taken   and
handed over to HUDA as claimed.  Further whether in the
layout plan as referred in the order dated 11.10.2014
impugned   in   the   writ   petition,   the   very   item   of   land
belonging   to   the   appellants   was   reserved   for   the
institutional   plot,   green   belt   and   parking   areas   as
claimed and as to whether the surrounding area had
been developed by HUDA by forming the residential plots
was also to be considered, though not in the nature of an
appeal, but to satisfy itself on perusal of relevant records.
The further contention on behalf of the appellants is that
in respect of the very same layout this Court in the case

Page 12 of 15
of  Patasi Devi Vs.  State  of  Haryana & Ors.  (2012) 9
SCC 503 has directed that the land involved therein be
released.   It is no doubt seen that in the said case the
appellant   who   was   the   owner   of   the   land   which   was
acquired had constructed a house and in that light there
being no document to indicate that the possession was
taken   over   by   putting   a   lock,   it   was   held   that   the
possession was not taken.  Though that be the position it
is also indicated that the case of the appellant therein
was required to be considered in the same manner as
was done in the case of M/s Sharad Farm and Holdings
(P) Ltd.  Apart from the said decision which relates to the
very same layout, the learned counsel for the appellants
has also relied on the decision in the case of Hari Ram
& Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 621
wherein with reference to the Policy dated 26.10.2007 it
is indicated that the similar land owners should receive a
similar consideration  when  representation  is made for
deletion.

Page 13 of 15
13. Having taken note of all the above aspects, the fact
of   the   possession   actually   having   been   taken   would
require determination at the outset based on examination
of records.  Secondly the aspects as pointed out relating
to the deletion of similar lands and as to whether the
land acquired from the appellants is lying vacant and if
so whether the appellant is similarly placed as that of the
other land owners whose case was considered under the
Policy for deletion are aspects which are to be examined
by   the   High   Court   by   notifying   the   respondents   and
permitting them to file their objection statement and also
after securing the records and verifying the same.  Since
such exercise was not undertaken by the High Court,
though   was   required   in   the   present   facts   and
circumstances it would be appropriate to set aside the
order and restore the writ petition to the file of the High
Court for consideration in accordance with law.  Any of
the   observations   contained   herein   are   limited   to   the
disposal of this appeal and the High Court shall dispose
of the writ petition by a considered order on its own
merits.  All contentions in that regard are left open.

Page 14 of 15
14. Accordingly, the order dated 21.10.2015 passed in
CWP   No.   22656/2015   is   set   aside   and   the   petition
bearing CWP No. 22656/2015 is restored on board of the
High   Court   for   the   States   of   Punjab   &   Haryana   at
Chandigarh   for   consideration   afresh   after   affording
sufficient   opportunity   to   both   parties   and   disposal   in
accordance with law.
15. The appeal is allowed in part with no order as to
cost.   All pending applications shall stand disposed of.
 
……………………….J.
(R. BANUMATHI)
……………………….J.
                                              (A.S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi,
September 17, 2019

Page 15 of 15