/2023 INSC 0120/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1347­1349 OF 2023
(@ SLP (C) Nos. 11842­11844/2022)
State of Haryana & Ors.               ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Niranjan Singh & Ors. Etc.       …Respondent(s)
With
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1351 OF 2023
(@ SLP (C) No. 3980 /2023)
(@ D. No. 37052/2022)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
common judgment and order  dated 09.04.2021 passed by
the   High   Court   of   Punjab   and   Haryana   at   Chandigarh   in
CWP No. 16346/2013, CWP No. 6729/2013 and CWP No.
10452/2014,   by   which,   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High
Court has allowed the said writ petitions and has set aside
the   action   of   the   State   in   declining   prayer   of   the   original
1

writ   petitioners   –   original   land   owners   for   release   of   their
respective acquired land(s) and consequently, has directed
to   release   their   respective   acquired   land(s)   from
acquisition,   the   State   of   Haryana   and   others   have
preferred   the   present   appeals.   Feeling   aggrieved   and
dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed
in writ petition ­ CWP No. 10452/2014, the beneficiaries of
the   acquisition   have   also   preferred   the   present   appeal
arising out of Diary No. 37052/2022. 
1.1 At   the   outset,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   Civil   Appeal
No. 1347/2023 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11842/2022 is
concerned,   the   same   is   against   the   impugned   judgment
and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   in   CWP   No.
6729/2013. Civil Appeal No. 1348/2023 arising out of SLP
(C) No. 11843/2022 is concerned, the same is against the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in
CWP   No.   16346/2013   and   Civil   Appeal   No.   1349/2023
arising   out   of   SLP   (C)   No.   11844/2022   is   concerned,   the
same is against the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court in CWP No. 10452/2014.    
 
2

2. For   the   sake   of   convenience,   the   facts   of   CWP   No.
16346/2013 are considered which was also considered by
the High Court as a lead matter.
FACTS IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.1348 /2023 ARISING OUT
OF CWP NO. 16346/2013
2.1 That   the   State   of   Haryana   issued   a   notification   dated
21.04.1987   under   Section   4   of   the   Land   Acquisition   Act,
1894   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   Act),   intending   to
acquire   the   land   measuring   35.76   acres   for   the
development   and   utilization   of   land   as   residential   and
commercial   Sector   11,   Kurukshetra   and   the   same   was
followed   with   declaration/notification   under   Section   6   of
the Act dated 20.04.1988. The objections were invited from
all  the   concerned  land   owners.  That  thereafter,  the  award
was   pronounced   by   the   Land   Acquisition   Collector   on
12.04.1990 for the land measuring 34.61 acres only. That
thereafter, a further notification was issued by the State of
Haryana   under   Section   4   of   the   Act   dated   11.02.2002   for
acquiring the land measuring 126.30 acres for residential,
commercial and institutional purposes in Sector 6 and 11,
Kurukshetra.   It   appears   that   even   before   the   issuance   of
3

notification under Section 6 of the Act, the land measuring
81.91   acres   belonging   to   43   land   holders   came   to   be
released, details of which shall be considered hereinbelow.
That thereafter, except the original writ petitioners of CWP
No.   16346/2013,   rest   of   the   lands   acquired   belonging   to
the   different   land   holders   came   to   be   released   from
acquisition either by the State Government or pursuant to
the   order(s)   passed   by   the   High   Court   in   various   writ
petitions,   the   area   of   which   amounts   to   40.80   acres.   The
particulars   of   the   land   released   with   respect   to   the   land
acquired   vide   notification   dated   21.04.1987   in   tabular
form are as under: ­ 
Sr.
No.  Acquisition   details   of   land   acquired   under
L.A. Act, 1894 Area   in
acres
1. Section ­4, 21.4.1987  46.49
2. Land excluded u/s 5 A 10.83
3. Section ­6, 20.4.1988 35.66
4. Land released between u/s 6 and award 1.05
5. Award 12.04.1990 34.61
6. Land released after award 26.83
7. Balance Land Area [5­(6+7)] 7.78
8. CWPs pending u/s 24(2) 4.056
9. CWPs pending other than u/s 24(2) 1.125
10. CWPs dismissed/acquisition upheld  NA
11. CWPs   allowed/acquisition   quashed   by
Hon’ble High Court where SLP filed or yet to
be filed.  0.50
4

2.2 That   thereafter,   the   original   writ   petitioners   filed   the   writ
petition   before   the   High   Court   challenging   the   acquisition
by   filing   CWP   No.   371/2008   which   came   to   be   dismissed
as   withdrawn   vide   order   dated   11.01.2008   by   granting
liberty   to   the   land   owners   to   file   a   representation   before
the   authorities   concerned   for   redressal   of   their   grievance.
As   a   result   of   which,   the   original   writ   petitioners   filed   a
representation   dated   22.01.2008   praying   for   release   of
their   acquired   land   on   parity   with   the   similarly   situated
persons   whose   land   was   released   by   the   State.   That
thereafter,   after   the   second   round   of   litigation,   the
representation came to be dismissed and the prayer of the
original land owners to release their land from acquisition
came   to   be   rejected.   The   same   was   the   subject   matter   of
CWP No. 16346/2013 before the High Court. 
2.3 Now,   so   far   as   Civil   Appeal   arising   out   of   CWP   No.
6729/2013   is   concerned,   the   representation   filed   by   the
original   land   owners   for   release   of   their   acquired   land
came   to   be   rejected   vide   order   dated   15.06.2012,   which
was the subject matter of CWP No. 6729/2013. 
5

2.4 Similarly,   original   writ   petitioner   –   Anita   Kumari   Sharma
filed CWP No. 10452/2014 before the High Court rejecting
their prayer to release the land from acquisition. 
2.5 By   the   impugned   common   judgment   and   order,   the   High
Court has allowed the said writ petitions and has set aside
the orders/notifications issued by the Government and the
action   of   the   State   Government   in   declining   prayer   of   the
writ   petitioners   –   original   land   owners   for   release   of   their
respective   acquired   land(s)   being   violative   of   Article   14   of
the   Constitution   of   India   by   observing   that   the   major
chunk of the land belonging  to the similarly situated land
owners   already   stood   released.   Consequently,   the   High
Court   has   directed   to   release   the   land   belonging   to   the
original land owners from the acquisition.   
2.6 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
common   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court,
the State of Haryana and others have preferred the present
appeals.  
3. Shri   Alok   Sangwan,   learned   AAG   appearing   on   behalf   of
the State has vehemently submitted that as such the land
in question is needed by the State and therefore, the High
6

Court has materially  erred in directing  to release the land
in question from acquisition. 
3.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Sangwan, learned AAG
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   State   that   once   the   lands   in
question   have   been   acquired   after   following   the   due
procedure   required   under   the   Act   and   thereafter,   the
award came to be passed and even the compensation was
paid   and   the   possession   was   taken   over   and   the   lands
actually vested in the State Government/acquiring body. It
is submitted that therefore, the High Court has materially
erred   in   directing   to   release   the   acquired   lands   from
acquisition. 
3.2 It is further submitted by learned AAG that the High Court
has not properly appreciated the fact that other lands were
released   by   the   State   pursuant   to   the   order(s)   passed   by
the High Court in various writ petitions. 
3.3 It is further submitted by learned AAG appearing on behalf
of the State that so far as the land acquired with respect to
CWP No. 10452/2014 is concerned, the land in question is
already   utilized   and   used   for   the   sewage   line   and   Rs.   17
crores have been spent in constructing the sewage line and
7

it   is   submitted   that   therefore,   if   the   land   is   released,   as
ordered   by   the   High   Court,   the   same   shall   be   against   the
public interest  and the entire sewage line which  has been
constructed   after   spending   Rs.   17   crores   will   have   to   be
removed. Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel appearing
on   behalf   of   the   residents   of   the   locality   has   also
vehemently   submitted   that   if   the   land   in   question   is
released from acquisition as ordered by the High Court in
that case the sewage line already  constructed will have to
be   removed   which   will   be   against   the   public   interest   and
also against the interest of the residents of the locality. 
3.4 It is further submitted that so far as the land with respect
to CWP No. 6729/2013 is concerned, the same is required
by   the   State   for   widening   of   the   road   and   therefore,   the
State   was   justified   in   refusing   to   release   the   land   from
acquisition. 
3.5 Now,   so   far   as   the   land   with   respect   to   CWP   No.
16346/2013   is   concerned,   it   is   submitted   that   the   said
land   is   required   for   constructing   the   shopping   mall   and
the   parking   and   therefore,   the   prayer   of   the   original   land
8

owners to release their land(s) from acquisition was rightly
rejected by the authority. 
3.6 Making the above submissions, it is vehemently submitted
by learned AAG that the High Court has materially erred in
quashing   and   setting   aside   the   orders   passed   by   the
State/authority   rejecting   the   prayer   of   the   original   writ
petitioners   –   land   owners   to   release   their   land(s)   from
acquisition   and   the   High   Court   has   materially   erred   in
directing   to   release   the   acquired   land(s)   in   question   from
acquisition.         
4. While   opposing   Civil   Appeal   arising   out   of   CWP   No.
16346/2013,   Shri   Neeraj   Kumar   Jain,   learned   Senior
Advocate   has   vehemently   submitted   that   in   the   present
case, the State Government has released the major chunk
of   the   land   arising   out   of   the   very   notification   and   only,
small   portion   of   the   land   belonging   to   the   original   writ
petitioners have not been released. He has taken us to the
map   showing   that   except   the   plot/land   in   question   of   the
original writ petitioners and others, all other major chunk
of   the   lands   have   been   released   from   acquisition.   He   has
vehemently submitted that out of total land approximately
9

46.49 acres for which the notification under Section 4 was
issued,   land   measuring   10.83   acres   came   to   be   excluded
at the stage of inquiry under Section 5 A. The award came
to   be   declared   with   respect   to   the   land   measuring   34.61
acres only and thereafter, the land measuring 26.83 acres
came   to   be   further   released   after   the   award   was   passed
and   the   land   measuring   7.78   acres   came   to   be   continued
under   acquisition,   out   of   which   further   two   writ   petitions
are   pending   with   respect   to   the   land   measuring   4.056
acres and 1.125 acres and it is submitted that only  small
plot(s)   of   the   original   writ   petitioners   have   not   been
released, which has already been observed and held by the
High Court that the same is discriminatory and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 
4.1 Shri   Neeraj   Kumar   Jain,   learned   Senior   Advocate
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   original   writ   petitioners   has
further   submitted   that   one   Vipin   Jindal   whose   lands   was
declared   under   the   same   notification,   filed   writ   petition
(CWP)   No.   3780/2008   before   the   High   Court   challenging
the   acquisition   and   also   praying   for   release   of   the   land(s)
from acquisition, which came to be dismissed by the High
10

Court vide order dated 13.03.2008. It is submitted that the
said Vipin Jindal filed civil appeal(s) before this Court and
this Court disposed of the said civil appeal(s) by permitting
the   land   owner(s)   to   file   a   representation   before   the
appropriate   authority   of   the   State   Government   to   release
the   land   from   acquisition.   It   is   submitted   that   this   Court
has   specifically   observed   that   somewhat   inconsistent
stand has been taken on the part of the State Government
and   if,   similarly   situated   persons   had   been   granted   relief,
the   appellant   therein   ought   to   be   granted   similar   relief.   It
is   submitted   that   thereafter,   land   belonging   to   the   said
Vipin Jindal has been released by order dated 02.08.2016
on   the   condition   that   he   will   return   the   compensation
amount   received   by   him   to   the   department   along   with
interest  and  he  will  surrender   the  land  falling  in  the   road
alignment HUDA. 
4.2 Shri   Neeraj   Kumar   Jain,   learned   Senior   Advocate
appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners has also
taken   us   to   the   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High
Court   in  writ   petition   No.  5732/1988,   by  which,  the  High
Court   has   quashed   the   acquisition.   Shri   Neeraj   Kumar
11

Jain,   learned   Senior   Advocate   has   also   taken   us   to   the
judgment and order passed by the High Court in CWP No.
11377/1988,   by   which,   the   High   Court   quashed   the
acquisition   by   observing   that   the   State   Government
withdrew   from   acquisition   some   of   the   area   which
belonged   to   the   then   Speaker   of   the   Haryana   Vidhan
Sabha and another portion belonging to the Radha Swami
Satsang,   Kurukshetra.   It   is   submitted   that   therefore,   the
High   Court   observed   that   the   decision   of   the   State
Government to continue with the acquisition was arbitrary
and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is
further   submitted   by   Shri   Neeraj   Kumar   Jain,   learned
Senior   Advocate   that   except   small   parcel/portion   of   the
land   belonging   to   the   original   writ   petitioners   all   other
major chunk of the lands/plots have been released and the
land in question is not required now and therefore, there is
no   valid   reason   not   to   release   the   land(s)   of   the   original
land   owners   from   acquisition.   It   is   submitted   that
therefore,   the   High   Court   has   not   committed   any   error   in
allowing   the   writ   petitions   and   directing   the   State   to
release their lands from acquisition on the parity. 
12

4.3 Shri   Sachin   Jain,   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of
the   original   writ   petitioners   in   SLP   (C)   No.   11844/2022
arising   out   of   CWP   No.   10452/2014,   though   is   not
disputing   that   the   land   in   question   belonging   to   the
original writ petitioner  has already been utilized and used
for   sewage   line,   submitted   that   the   remaining   land   after
deducting the land already used for laying down the pipes
be released. 
4.4 Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   original   writ
petitioners in SLP (C) No. 11842/2022 arising out of CWP
No. 6729/2013 has adopted the submissions made by Shri
Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned Senior Advocate.
  
5. Having heard Shri Alok Sangwan, learned AAG, appearing
on behalf of the State and Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned
Senior   Advocate,   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   original   writ
petitioners   in   civil   appeal   arising   out   of   CWP   No.
16346/2013   before   the   High   Court   and   having   gone
through   the   material   on   record   and   the   manner   in   which
the   State   has   dealt   with   the   acquisition   proceedings   and
has   released   the   lands   acquired   from   time   to   time   right
13

from the proceedings at the stage of Section 5 A of the Act
and thereafter is highly deprecable. Earlier the lands have
been   released   by   the   State   Government   initially   in   favour
of   the   influential   persons   and   thereafter   pursuant   to   the
various orders passed by the High Court which were never
challenged   by   the   State,   it   demonstrates   the   arbitrary
exercise   of   powers   by   the   State   in   releasing   the   acquired
lands   which   as   such   required   for   public   purposes.   At   the
outset,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   when   the   lands   are
acquired for the utilization and development as residential
and   commercial   area   to   develop   new   sectors   and   that   too
by   the   urban   development   authority,   the   future   need   is
required   to   be   considered   and   the   expansion   in   future   is
also required to be taken into consideration and/or bear in
mind.   The   expansion   in   future   in   the   next   20­25   years   is
required to be taken into consideration and/or is required
to   be   considered   when   use   of   such   a   vast   land   for   the
development of the area/new sectors are required.
5.1 In the present case, it is not in dispute that large chunk of
area   measuring   46.49   acres   was   acquired   as   far   as   back
on   21.04.1987.   Such   a   large   chunk   of   land   was   acquired
14

for   the   development   and   utilization   of   land   as   residential
and   commercial   area   in   Sector   11,   Kurukshetra   by   the
Haryana   Urban   Development   Authority   (HUDA).   Out   of
46.49   acres   of   land   acquired   vide   notification   under
Section   4,   10.83   acres   of   land   came   to   be   excluded   from
acquisition   at   the   stage   of   notification   under   Section   5   A.
Out   of   remaining   35.66   acres   of   land,   1.05   acres   of   land
was released between Section 6 notification and the award.
Thereafter,   out   of   remaining   34.61   acres   of   land,   26.83
acres   of   land   came   to   be   released   after   award   dated
12.04.1990.   Therefore,   the   balance   land   remained   to   the
extent   of   7.78   acres   only,   out   of   which   even   at   present
approximately 6 acres of land acquired is under litigation.
Therefore,   the   land   with   respect   to   the   original   writ
petitioners   of   CWP   No.   16346/2013   is   only   small   plots   of
the land which remained. If the map produced on record is
considered   except   the   present   small   portion/plot   in
question, all other major chunk of the land, the particulars
of   which   are  given   as  above,   have  been  released   either   by
the   State   on   its   own   and/or   pursuant   to   the   order(s)
passed by the High Court which were never challenged by
15

the   State  and  it  seems  that  the  State  was  happy  with  the
decision   of   the   High   Court   directing   to   release   the   lands
from acquisition. In the earlier order passed by this Court
in   Civil   Appeals   No.   3235­3237/2015   with   respect   to   the
lands acquired by the very notification, it appears that this
Court   took   note   of   the   release   of   the   lands   by   the   State
Government   upon   refund   of   compensation.   This   Court
took note of the fact that several land owners whose lands
were   acquired   filed   writ   petitions   challenging   the
notification, which writ petitions were however, withdrawn
with   liberty   to   file   representations   with   the   State
Government   and   thereafter,   the   representations   were
answered   in   favour   of   the   writ   petitioners   by   ordering
release of the land after refund of compensation. Therefore,
this   Court   in   the   case   of   Vipin   Jindal   (supra)   also
relegated/permitted   the   said   land   owner   to   file   a
representation   by   observing   that   somewhat   inconsistent
stand has been taken on the part of the Government. That
thereafter,   the   representation   of   Vipin   Jindal   has   been
considered favourably and his land has been released from
acquisition. 
16

5.2 Even   from   the   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High
Court in CWP No. 11377/1988, by which, the High Court
allowed the said writ petition and quashed the acquisition
with   respect   to   some   of   the   lands   acquired   by   the   said
notification,   it   appears   that   what   weighed   with   the   High
Court was after the notification under Section 6 of the Act,
the   Government   withdrew   from   acquisition   some   of   the
area   which   belonged   to   the   then   Speaker   of   the   Haryana
Vidhan Sabha and another portion belonging to the Radha
Swami Satsang, Kurukshetra.
5.3 Thus, from the aforesaid, it is apparent that earlier except
the   land   in   question   belonging   to   the   writ   petitioners   of
CWP   No.   16346/2013,   all   other   lands   have   been   released
except   the   small   parcel/plot   of   the   lands   belonging   to   the
original writ petitioners. Now, non­release of land is sought
to   be   justified   on   the   ground   that   the   same   is   now
proposed   to   be   used   as   shopping   mall   and   parking.   It   is
required   to   be   noted   that   the   land   in   question   has   been
acquired   in   the   year   1987   along   with   the   total   land
measuring   46.49   acres,   out   of   which,   except   the   present
17

small   parcel/part   of   the   land,   all   other   lands   have   been
released and/or the acquisition with respect to same have
been   quashed.   Considering   the   aforesaid   facts   and
circumstances,  when   the  High  Court  has  allowed  the  writ
petition   ­   CWP   No.   16346/2013   and   has   quashed   the
acquisition   proceedings   and   has   directed   to   release   the
land in question, it cannot be   said that the learned Single
Judge   and/or   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   has
committed  any   error   which   caused  for   interference   of  this
Court. No interference of this Court is called for. However,
at the cost of repetition, we deprecate the manner in which
the   State   has   dealt   with   the   acquisition   proceedings   and
have released the land(s) and/or permitted the acquisition
to   be   quashed   in   a   most   arbitrary   manner.   The   lands   as
such   were   acquired   for   the   residential   and   commercial
development   purposes  which   could  not  have  been  utilized
and   used   for   public   purposes   and   development   of   the
area/sector   and   the   State   Government   by   exercising   the
powers   arbitrarily   and/or   in   favoritism   has   failed   to   use
the   lands   for   public   purposes   for   which   the   lands   were
acquired.  The State  Government  is  guardian  of  the  public
18

interest   and   the   public   and   the   public   interest   was
required   to   be   considered   the   paramount   interest   rather
than   releasing   the   lands   at   initial   stage   in   favour   of   the
influential persons. The State shall take care in future and
must use the lands acquired for the purpose for which the
same have been acquired otherwise the object and purpose
of acquiring the land will be frustrated. 
5.4 Now,   so   far   as   the   Civil   Appeal   arising   out   of   CWP   No.
10452/2014 is concerned, at the outset it is required to be
noted that the land in question is already utilized and used
for the sewage lines and approximately Rs. 17 crores have
been   spent   in   constructing   sewage   lines.   Therefore,   the
High Court has committed a very serious error in quashing
and   setting   aside   the   acquisition   with   respect   to   the   said
land which is already put to use for the sewage lines which
is being used for the public purpose and for the residents
of   the   locality.   If   the   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the
High Court stands in that case, the entire sewage lines will
have   to   be   removed   which   has   been   constructed   after
spending Rs. 17 crores and which is being used for public
purpose.   The   submissions   on   behalf   of   the   original   writ
19

petitioners   is   that   leaving   aside   the   land   which   is   already
used  for  the  sewage  lines,  the   remaining   land   be   released
cannot   be   accepted.   The   part   land   cannot   be   released
and/or   with   respect   to   the   part   land,   the   acquisition
cannot   be   quashed.   It   is   required   to   be   noted   that   in   the
present case the acquisition has been completed including
acquiring   the   land,   passing   the   award   and   payment   of
compensation   and   the   land   in   question   is   vested   in   the
State   Government   free   from   all   encumbrances.   Under   the
circumstances,   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed
by   the   High   Court   in   CWP   No.   10452/2014   is
unsustainable   and   the   same   deserves   to   be   quashed   and
set aside. 
5.5 Similarly,   so   far   as   the   Civil   Appeal   arising   out   CWP   No.
6729/2013 is concerned, the representation of the original
writ   petitioners   to   release   the   land   from   acquisition   is
rejected   on   the   ground   that   the   land   is   required   for
widening of the road. Having gone through the map, we are
of   the   opinion   that   when   the   land   in   question   is   required
by the State for widening  of the road and when the entire
acquisition   proceedings   have   been   concluded   including
20

declaration   of   the   award,   passing   of   the   award   and   the
payment of the compensation, the acquisition with respect
to the said land which is required for widening of the road
ought not to have been quashed and/or the same land was
not   required   to   be   released.   The   State   was   absolutely
justified   in   not   releasing   the   said   land   which   as   such   is
required   for   the   widening   of   the   road.   Under   the
circumstances,   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed
by   the   High   Court   in   CWP   No.   6729/2013   deserves   to   be
quashed and set aside.         
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, Civil
Appeal  arising  out  of   SLP   (C)   No.   11843/2022   arising  out
of   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   in   CWP   No.
16346/2013   is   hereby   dismissed   with   the   above
observations. 
7. For the reasons stated above, Civil Appeals, arising out of
SLP   (C)   No.   11844/2022   (arising   out   of   CWP   No.
10452/2014)   and   SLP   (C)   No.   11842/2022   (arising   out   of
CWP No. 6729/2013) and  arising  out  of  SLP  (C) No. 3980
of   2023,   are   hereby   allowed.   The   impugned   judgment(s)
and   order(s)   passed   by   the   High   Court   in   CWP   Nos.
21

10452/2014   and   6729/2013   are   hereby   quashed   and   set
aside.   In   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case   there
shall be no order as to costs.  
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
FEBRUARY 24, 2023 [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
22