Land Acquisition Dispute: Supreme Court Orders Fresh Consideration

The case of Shakuntala Yadav & Others v. State of Haryana & Others revolves around the dispute concerning the acquisition of land by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) and the rejection of the petitioners’ request to release their land. The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for landowners whose lands have been acquired for public purposes.

Background of the Case

The appellants, Shakuntala Yadav and others, filed the appeal against the Haryana government’s decision to reject their request for the release of 1.23 acres of land in Khasra No. 23/8/1, 8/2, 9/2, 12/2, and 13/1 in village Sahaul, Tehsil, and District Gurgaon. They also contested the acquisition of an additional 0.25 acres in Khasra No. 23/10/1.

The High Powered Committee (HPC) had denied their plea, stating that possession of the land had already been taken and handed over to HUDA following an acquisition award on March 12, 2004.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners contended that their land should be treated similarly to the land of Millennium Industries Private Limited, which was excluded from acquisition under the same policy considerations. They argued that their land was part of the Lal Dora land, an area traditionally exempt from government acquisition. They further cited letters from the Land Acquisition Officer and the District Town Planner, confirming that land within two acres of Lal Dora was exempted from acquisition.

Respondents’ Arguments

The State of Haryana argued that the land had already been taken into possession and was allotted for industrial plots by HUDA. They relied on the decision of the High Powered Committee, which asserted that possession had been transferred to HUDA, thereby making the release of land legally impossible under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court found inconsistencies in the government’s claims regarding possession. The court observed that while the respondents claimed the land was taken over, there was no conclusive evidence of physical possession. It held that symbolic possession, as opposed to actual possession, was not sufficient to justify denial of land release.

The court also noted that the government had failed to file additional affidavits to clarify the status of possession, despite repeated opportunities and monetary penalties imposed on them for non-compliance.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court and High Powered Committee’s decisions. The matter was remanded to the High Powered Committee for fresh consideration, directing that:

• The petitioners’ request should not be rejected on the ground of land vesting under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act.
• If the land falls within Lal Dora, the same treatment must be given to the petitioners as was granted to Millennium Industries Private Limited.
• The High Powered Committee must decide within three months, failing which its members would be personally liable to pay a fine of Rs. 500 per day.

The Supreme Court also extended the interim order to maintain the status quo regarding possession until the final decision is made.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Shakuntala Yadav & O vs State of Haryana & O Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 09-03-2016-1741853968068.pdf