Land Release Policy Consideration: Supreme Court Judgement

In a significant legal case, the Supreme Court of India has issued a judgement regarding the consideration of land release policies. The case involves a dispute over the release of land acquired under Notification dated 15.12.2006. The court’s decision carries implications for the involved parties and sets a precedent for future land release matters.

Facts

• Appellants claim land has not been utilized as per acquisition purpose
• Appellants approached High Court through CWP.No.5836 of 2014
• Appellants challenge order dated 21.10.2015 in CWP No.22656/2015
• Land acquired under Notification dated 15.12.2006, final declaration on 14.12.2007
• Appellants seek release of land from acquisition process
• Writ petitions along with CWP.No.22652 and 22653 of 2015 dismissed
• Representation for land release made on 20.02.2014, rejected on 10.11.2014
• High Court directs authorities to verify claim of appellants for land release
• Secretary-cum-Director General rejected appellants’ claim on 10.11.2014
• Appellants challenge rejection in High Court, leading to present appeal
• The High Court reviewed the order dated 21.10.2015 regarding the release of land.
• The State Government found that the land in question was vacant at the time of the notification under Section 4 of the Act and remains vacant.
• The High Court deemed the release of land invalid based on the policy dated 26.10.2007, modified on 24.01.2011.
• The policy in question is intended for the release of land with residential buildings constructed on it, which was not the case here.

Also Read: Solapur Municipal Corporation vs. Majarewadi Gram Panchayat Employees

Arguments

• The possession being taken by drawing a Panchnama is considered the approved mode of taking possession.
• Cases such as Sita Ram Bhandar Society vs Lieutenant Governor, Government of NCT, Delhi & Ors., M. Venkatesh vs Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, and Indore Development Authority vs. Shailendra support the validity of taking possession through Panchnama.
• In the case of V. Chandra Sekaran vs. Administrative Officer & Ors., it was established that once land is acquired, it cannot be restored even if not used.
• A policy for the release of land is adopted by the respondents, and the appellant is seeking consideration on parity based on this policy.
• The Panchnama for taking possession was not at the spot as argued by the appellants, referencing the case of Banda Development Authority, Banda vs. Moti Lal Agarwal and Ors.
• Considering the nature of consideration by the High Court in the earlier round and the relevance of possession in de-notifying land under Section 48 of the L.A. Act.
• The decision in Hari Ram & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. emphasizes that similar landowners should receive similar consideration when seeking deletion based on a representation made.

Also Read: Vaishali Wadhwani and Mamta Mishra vs. MPPSC: Upholding Justice and Integrity in Recruitment Processes

Analysis

• The appellants’ land in Sector 36 is planned for institutional plot, green belt, and parking area.
• Contentions regarding the land’s necessity for the layout plan require further examination by the High Court.
• Possession of the land was claimed to be taken by HUDA based on ‘Rapat Roznamcha’ on 09.12.2009.
• Appellants claim continued possession supported by revenue records and photographs.
• High Court dismissed the petition without thorough consideration, prompting a need for deeper examination.
• Appellants argue that their unutilized land should be released based on the surrounding lands being released as per the sector’s layout plan.
• Validity of possession by HUDA and the land reservation in the layout plan need thorough review by the High Court.
• A previous case involving land release was cited by appellants to support their argument.
• Dismissal of the writ petition without notice to respondents or fully considering appellants’ contentions raises concerns.
• The competent authority noted the appellants’ land is vacant despite being planned for institutional plot, green belt, and parking area.
• The collaboration agreement with M/s Sharad Farm and Holdings (P) Ltd. after land acquisition notification raises an inter-se issue.
• Appellants’ representation indicates objections were filed under Section 5-A of the L.A. Act to the proposed acquisition.
• Policy for deletion consideration requires objections under Section 5-A to be filed, which appellants claim to have done.
• Acquisition notification was issued in 2006, and objections were filed by appellants in 2014.
• The possession of the land in question needs to be determined based on examination of records initially.
• The High Court should examine whether similar lands have been deleted and if the acquired land is vacant.
• It is important for the High Court to notify and allow the respondents to file objections and verify records.
• Due to the failure of the High Court to conduct this necessary examination, the order is to be set aside.
• The writ petition should be restored to the High Court for reconsideration following proper legal procedures.

Also Read: Jagdishchandra v. Joint Charity Commissioner & Ors.

Decision

• The observations in this judgement are limited to the disposal of the appeal.
• The High Court is directed to dispose of the writ petition on its own merits.
• All pending applications are disposed of and can be considered afresh with proper opportunity to both parties.
• Any contentions related to this matter are left open.
• The appeal is allowed in part with no cost imposed.
• The previous order dated 21.10.2015 in CWP No 22656/2015 is set aside and the petition is restored to the High Court for further proceedings.

Case Title: KRISHAN CHANDER Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

Case Number: C.A. No.-007317-007317 / 2019

Click here to read/download original judgement