Page 1

1

REPORTABLE   

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

  CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2174-2175 OF 2012

SHAKUNTALA YADAV AND OTHERS Appellant(s)

       Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Respondent(s)

    W I T H

           CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2176-2177 OF 2012

SHAKUNTALA YADAV AND OTHERS   Appellant(s)   Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS   Respondent(s)  

  J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.  

1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellants are aggrieved since their request  for release of 1.23 acres of land falling in Khasra  No.  23/8/1,  8/2,  9/2,  12/2  and  13/1  in  village  Sahaul, Tehsil and District Gurgaon and .25 acres of

Page 2

2

land falling I Khasra No. 23/10/1 in the same village  has been rejected.

3. Placing  reliance  on  the  letter  of  the  Finance  Minister of Haryana, for releasing lands coming under  Lal Dora, the appellants approached the High Powered  Committee.   It  appears  that  the  High  Powered  Committee turned down the request on the ground that  possession of the property had already been taken,  pursuant to Award passed on 12.3.2004 and that the  same had already been handed over to Haryana Urban  Development Authority (in short 'the HUDA').  That  decision of the High Powered Committee was challenged  before  the  High  Court  leading  to  the  impugned  judgments.

4. The High Court endorsed the view taken by the  High  Powered  Committee  and  has  held  that  once  the  acquired land has already been taken possession of,  there is no question of release under Section 48 of  the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act').

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State sought to  establish  that  the  land  had  already  been  taken  possession of, by inviting our attention to the order  passed by the High Powered Committee on 28.3.2008,  wherein it is stated as

Page 3

3

follows :- “8. In  fact  the  petitioner  had  two  pockets  of  land  measuring  1.23  acres  falling in Khasra No. 23/8/1, 8/2, 9/2,  12/2,  13/1  and  0.25  acres  falling  in  Khasra No. 23/10/1.  The applicants had  applied for change of land use of these  khasra  numbers  for  setting  up  of  information  technology  unit  on  5.12.2005  in  the  office  of  Director,  Town  and  Country  Planning.   The  said  application  was  returned  vide  No.  G-1721-AD(B)- 2006/9881 dated 21,4,2006 mentioning that  the applied land is under acquisition and  the applicants were asked to get the land  released and then apply for change of land  use  permission.   The  land  is  already  acquired and HUDA has taken a possession  of land of other land owners vide Rapat  Rojnamcha dated 12.3.2004.  It was also  informed by Chief Town Planner (HUDA) that  HUDA has planned industrial plots on this  land and allotted 11 No. such plots.  It  was noted that land of the applicant is  lying vacant.  Since as mentioned above  the  land  is  awarded,  possession  of  the  adjoining  land  stands  taken  and  also  stands  allotted  by  HUDA,  therefore,  the  land of the petitioner mentioned in CWP  No. 10294/2004 and 14669 of 2005 cannot be  considered for release.”

    6. We find it difficult to appreciate the contention  of the learned counsel for the State, that the High  Powered  Committee  had  taken  note  of  the  fact  of  taking  possession.   On  the  other  hand,  what  is  revealed from the order is that the lands which were  taken possession and handed over to HUDA was that of  other  land  owners.   The  stand  in  the  counter  affidavit  is  not  clear  on  the  aspect  of  taking  possession.  On the other hand, the appellants assert

Page 4

4

that they have never been dispossessed from the land.

7. In  the  above  circumstances,  this  Court  on  7th  

July, 2010 passed the following order :- “Learned  counsel  for  the  petitioners  

submits that in pursuance of the orders of  the Finance Minister of Haryana, issued in  the year 1981, two acres of land of Lal Dora  on all four sides of the lands in Village  Sarhaul,  Tehsil  and  District  Gurgaon  was  left free from acquisition and this has been  confirmed by the Land Acquisition Officer,  Urban  Estate,  Gurgaon,  Haryana  by  letter  dated  2.3.2005  and  by  the  District  Town  Planner Enforcement, Gurgaon in his letter  dated  9.6.2006  addressed  to  Millennium  Industries  Private  Limited  who  are  neighbours of petitioners.  He also submits  that on the basis of the said direction, the  land  of  Millennium  Industries  Private  Limited has been left out of acquisition.  It  is  submitted  that  the  land  of  the  petitioners also falls within the two acres  area around the village as in the case of  Millennium  Industries  Private  Limited  but  the  High  Powered  Committee  (HPC)  has  erroneously refused to leave out the land of  the petitioners.

In view of the said submissions, issue  notice.  Status quo regarding possession.”  

8. Thereafter  it  is  seen  that  the  matters  were  adjourned from time to time, to 13.9.2010, 9.11.2010,  22.2.2011,  30.3.2011,  4.5.2011  all  before  the  Registrar  and  on  22.7.2011  before  the  Court.  Thereafter,  on  26.8.2011,  this  Court  passed  a  specific order that the counter affidavit was vague  on the aspect of Lal Dora and Millennium Industries  Private  Limited,  specifically  referring  to  in  the

Page 5

5

order dated 7th July, 2010.  The order dated 26.8.2011 reads as follows :-

“We  find  that  the  counter  affidavit  filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 does  not  deal  with  the  submission  that  was  recorded by this Court in the order dated  7.7.2010.

At this stage, learned counsel for the  respondents  submitted  that  an  additional  affidavit with reference to the order dated  7.7.2010 will be filed.

Finally, adjourned by four weeks.”

9. On  23.9.2011,  since  time  was  sought  for  additional  affidavit,  a  detailed  order  was  passed,  which reads as follows :-

“By order dated 7.7.2010, we had noted  the submission of the petitioner that on the  orders  of  the  Finance  Minister  of  Haryana,  issued in the year 1981, two acres of land of  Lal  Dora  on  all  four  sides  in  village  Sarhaul, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was left  free  from  acquisition  and  this  has  been  confirmed  by  the  Land  Acquisition  Officer,  Urban  Estate,  Gurgaon,  Haryana  by  letter  dated  2.3.2005  and  by  the  District  Town  Planning  and  Enforcement  by  letter  dated  9.6.2006.  The contention of the petitioner  was  that  on  that  ground  the  lands  of  Millennium Industries Private Limited who are  neighbours  of  petitioners  were  left  out  of  acquisition,  but  their  land,  which  is  similarly situated, has not been left out. In  the  counter  filed,  this  issue  was  not  dealt  with  and  consequently  on  26.8.2011,  when we drew the attention to this fact, the  learned counsel for the respondent submitted  that an additional affidavit will be filed.  But  the  said  additional  affidavit  has  not  been filed.  Learned counsel for respondents  1 to 3 again seeks time.  We find no reason  to grant further time.  However, finally four  weeks' time is granted to file an additional  affidavit subject to deposit of Rs.2500/- as  costs with the Supreme Court Legal Services

Page 6

6

Committee and producing acknowledgment within  that period.

List thereafter.”   10. Despite the State being put on cost for filing  additional affidavit, it was noted by this Court when  the  matter  was  taken  up  thereafter  on  21.11.2011,  that  the  additional  affidavit  had  not  been  filed.  Hence  four  weeks'  more  time  was  granted  and  the  matter came up before this Court again on 3.1.2012.  It was noted that neither the cost was deposited nor  the affidavit filed.  Therefore, this Court imposed a  further  cost  of  Rs.5000/-  and  gave  one  more  opportunity, by way of last indulgence, to file the  additional affidavit.  Yet the additional affidavit  was not filed and therefore, on 10th February, 2012,  this Court passed the following order :-

“Right  of  the  respondents  to  file  additional affidavit is closed.

Delay condoned in filing special leave  petitions.

Leave granted. List  the  matters  for  hearing  at  an  

early date. In  the  meanwhile,  interim  order  to  

continue.”

11. We have extensively referred to the background of  the  case  before  this  Court  only  to  indicate  that  there was no assistance on the two crucial aspects

Page 7

7

which  are  actually  pivotal  for  a  decision  in  the  case.

12. The High Court, unfortunately, has gone only on  one  tangent  that  the  land  having  vested  with  the  Government on operation of Section 16 of the Act, the  request  for  release  under  Section  48  cannot  be  considered.   An  attempt  for  review,  when  the  appellants  pointed  out  the  instance  of  Millennium  Industries Private Limited, in similar circumstances,  was  also  turned  down,  without  going  into  those  aspects, by passing a cryptic order.

13. There being no Rojnama to show that the physical  possession had already been taken, nor any pleadings  in that regard, we find it difficult to appreciate  the submission made by the learned counsel for the  State that the possession had already been taken and  handed over to HUDA.  Unless the property is taken  possession of, in accordance with law, there arises  no  question  of  handing  over  the  property  to  HUDA.  Symbolic possession, as has been held by this Court  in (2012) 1 SCC 792 titled as Raghbir Singh Sehrawat  versus  State of Haryana and others, will not serve  the purpose .

14. In case the land of the appellants is in Lal

Page 8

8

Dora, we find no reason to deny, a similar treatment  as has been granted to Millennium Industries Private  Limited.  However, on the pleadings available before  this  Court,  we  find  it  difficult  to  arrive  at  a  definite conclusion in that regard.  Therefore, we  deem it just and proper to remand the matter to the  High Powered Committee.

15. In  the  above  circumstances,  the  appeals  are  allowed, the impugned orders passed by the High Court  are set aside.  The impugned order passed by the High  Powered  Committee  is  also  set  aside.   The  request  made by the appellants for release of their land are  remanded to respondent No.3 – High Powered Committee  for consideration afresh.

16. We  make  it  clear  that  the  request  of  the  appellants shall not be turned down, on the ground of  operation of Section 16 of the Act.  In case it is  found that the land is in Lal Dora, they shall also  be granted similar treatment, as has been given to  Millennium Industries Private Limited.

17. The  orders,  as  above,  shall  be  passed  expeditiously  by  Respondent  No.3  –  High  Powered  Committee,  at  any  rate,  within  a  period  of  three  months from the date of production of copy of this

Page 9

9

judgment.  In the event of any delay beyond the said  period,  the  members  of  the  Committee  shall  be  personally liable for costs to the tune of Rs.500/-  (rupees five hundred only) each per day.

18. Till  orders  are  passed,  as  above,  the  interim  orders passed by this Court to maintain status quo,  with regard to possession, will continue to operate.

19. No order as to costs.  

            ........................J.                       (KURIAN JOSEPH)

                 ........................J.                    (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

New Delhi, March 09, 2016

Page 10

10

ITEM NO.106               COURT NO.10               SECTION IV                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal  No(s).  2174-2175/2012 SHAKUNTALA YADAV & ORS.                            Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                            Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for permission to urge addl. grounds) WITH C.A. No. 2176-2177/2012 Date : 09/03/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Appellant(s)

Mr. Diljit Singh Ahluwalia, Adv.                       Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi,Adv.                      Md. Asfar Heyat Wasi, Adv. For Respondent(s)

Mr. Rahul Verma, AAG                      Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen,Adv.                                 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

These  appeals  are  allowed  in  terms  of  the  signed  reportable judgment.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

 [RENU DIWAN]     [SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR]   COURT MASTER             A.R.-CUM-P.S.    (Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)