Haryana Urban Development Authority vs Abhishek Gupta etc.

Held: Respondents failed to substantiate claims under Section 5A – State Government followed the four-stage procedure – Section 5A mandates a procedure, not a particular outcome – Respondents guaranteed a hearing and consideration, not relief – Interpretation of bare text of Section 5A – Legislature intended different roles for the collector and the Government – Collector has no power to “decide” the case and can only give ‘recommendations” to the Government who is the ultimate arbiter – Government’s decision not beyond judicial review – Can be challenged as arbitrary or passed without due application of mind – Onus on Respondents to point flaws in procedure – Respondents did not place any evidence on record to lay such foundation – Government/Appellant have demonstrated that their decision was not whimsical but was predicated on the findings of a High-Powered Committee which found Respondents’ structures to be unauthorized and not in conformity with the Development Plan – Government’s departure from the Collector’s recommendation made in public interest, with due application of mind and was fully justified. [Paras 4,5,7, 14,15, 17, 18, 20] Land Acquisition – Construction on land – Orders of Commissioner and ADJ permitting constructions specifically for agricultural land, not residential land – Respondents’ usage of land not limited to ‘agricultural purposes’ and it was intended to be ‘residential’ in nature as well – Orders permitting agricultural structures do not preclude the State Government from conducting an on-ground inspection as to the actual useof land – Serious doubts raised on jurisdictional competence of the Civil Court in holding that agriculture related structures could be raised without prior permission: Held: Orders of the Commissioner and ADJ were caveated approvals for prospective construction of the agricultural structures – Respondents admitted that the usage of the land was not limited to ‘agricultural purposes’ and that it was intended to be ‘residential’ in nature as well – The Respondents had not produced any reliable material to prove that the constructions on their land were authorised – In any case, exempting lands bearing constructions from acquisition is a matter of State Policy, not of law – Outcome would not be materially affected if construction was authorised – Prior authorization of the constructions is also not the definitive saving grace – State of Haryana v. Vinod Oil & General Millsrelied on. [Paras 12-26]

Constitution of India, Article 14 – Acquisition of Appellant’s land not discriminatory – Acquisition of 99.78% of the initially notified land shows State’s intention to acquire uniformly – Mere Plea regarding differential treatment insufficient – Article 14 cannot be ordinarily employed as a ground to claim negative equality– Illegality, if any, has since been remedied – Material subsequent event should have been noted by High Court:

Held: Respondents claimed that land belonging to Maharaja Harinder Singh ‘Khalaf’ Maharaja Varinder Singh had been exempted from acquisition – The High Court accepted this argument and quashed the acquisition, holding that similarly placed landowners had been left out of acquisition process – Held, order patently erroneous – Acquisition of 99.78% of the initially notified land shows State’s intention to acquire uniformly – Mere plea regarding differential treatment insufficient; burden lies on the Respondents to not only prove disparate treatment of equals, but that it amounts to hostile discrimination as well – Article 14 cannot be used to claim negative equality – Solution to some lands being unjustifiably left out is to direct their acquisition, not encourage the exclusion of more lands – High Court should have annulled illicit benefit received by the similarly placed person – Land of Maharaja Harinder Singh ‘Khalaf’ Maharaja Varinder Singh subsequently acquired before impugned order – Illegality, if any, has since been remedied – Material subsequent event should have been noted by High Court. [Paras 27-31]

Land Acquisition – State Government’s decision to release Respondents’ land from acquisition – If suffers from manifest arbitrariness:

Held: During the pendency of proceedings, the State Government conveyed its decision to release the Respondents’ land from acquisition on the condition that a portion be used for building of roads and other public amenities and the rest only for charitable, i.e. non-commercial, purposes, and the Respondents agreed – Perusal of records casts cloud of doubt on legal necessity of release of land – Crucial policy decisions finalised by very junior officials; files receiving approval at exceptional speed; important issues not considered – Decision manifestly arbitrary – State Government possesses the power to release the land for lawful considerations – Cannot do so whimsically, irrationally, without any application of mind, or selectively – Parties’ compromise not accepted. [Paras 32-46] Doctrine/ Principles – Doctrine of Merger – Effect of previous SLPs against same impugned judgment being dismissed after grant of leave – Doctrine of merger neither adoctrine of constitutional law nor of statutory recognition – Common law principle directed towards judicial propriety should not be applied in a straitjacket manner – Exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution used to carve out exception to doctrine of merger:

Held: Earlier SLPs by the State challenging the same impugned judgment of the High Court had been dismissed after grant of leave – Arguably doctrine of merger would be attracted – However, impugned judgement of the High Court found to be patently unjust and could adversely affect the subject acquisition, leading to significant harm to the public at large –Fit case to invoke powers under Article 142 and carve out an exception to do complete justice to the parties –Reliance on Kunhayammed, Khoday Distilleries and GNCTD v BSK Realtors. [Paras 47-53]