Supreme Court Rejects Landowner's Plea For Release Of Land From Acquisition; Directs Compensation Under Land Acquisition Act Despite Owner's Claim Of Continuous Physical Possession
The Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, directing compensation for the landowner.
The Supreme Court rejected a landowner’s representation, who claimed to be in physical possession of the land, for the release of the said land from acquisition.
The Court directed the compensation for the land acquired to be calculated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Act). The landowner (Appellant) had challenged the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Order dismissing the Appellant's Writ Petition, calling in question the Order passed by the State (Respondent) rejecting his representation for release of his land from acquisition.
A Bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice KV Viswanathan held that “since the appellant claims to be in continuous physical possession of the land wherein a factory is in operation and the department has not satisfactorily controverted this aspect of the matter, on the special facts of this case, in exercise of our power under Article 142, we deem it appropriate to direct that the compensation payable to the appellant should be calculated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as on the date of commencement of the said Act.”
Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta represented the Appellant, while ASG K.M. Nataraj appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Appellant had purchased the land in 1986, which was later included in a 1992 notification by the State of Haryana for land acquisition. The acquisition was for the development and utilisation of residential and commercial areas, along with sector roads in Sonipat. The Appellant’s initial Writ Petitions challenging the acquisition were dismissed or withdrawn. His final petition, seeking release of the land, was rejected by the State in 2010 and subsequently dismissed by the High Court.
The Appellant argued that the State had released similarly situated lands but not his, claiming discrimination. He also contended that his factory, operating since 1970, should have been protected under the State's policies. The State countered that the Appellant’s case was not eligible for release as he did not possess a valid Change of Land Use (CLU) certificate.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court, while noting the State's arguments regarding the absence of a valid CLU for running the factory, also noted the Appellant’s claimed to be in continuous possession of the land with a factory in operation.
“In respect of other released lands it is mentioned by the respondent/State in its counter affidavit/written submissions that the same are not part of the same Notification. It is, thus, apparent that the appellant’s case stands on a different footing inasmuch as the appellant has not obtained a valid CLU. Thus, the appellant’s plea of discrimination is liable to be rejected,” the Bench remarked.
The Court noted, “In its additional affidavit, the respondent/State of Haryana has categorically stated that the concerned department of the State Government has already incurred huge amount on account of development of the Sectors falling under the Notification and total expenditure of Rs. 2661.88 lakhs have been incurred towards the construction of sector roads, water supply networks, sewerage and stormwater drainage systems…Thus, release of the subject land will affect the entire planning of the land acquired under the Notification.”
Consequently, the Court held that “we are not inclined to accept the appellant’s prayer for release of land on the ground of discrimination.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court disposed of the Appeal.
Cause Title: Kishore Chhabra v. The State Of Haryana & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 419)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta; AOR G. Balaji; Advocates Pallavi Singh, Japneet Kaur, Manu Bhardwaj and Bikram Dwivedi
Respondents: ASG K. M. Nataraj; AAG B.K. Satija; AOR Samar Vijay Singh and Sushil Balwada; Advocates Sabarni Som, Fateh Singh, Aman Dev Sharma, Amit Ojha and Keshav Mittal