Acquisition Of Land Does Not Violate Any Constitutional Or Fundamental Right Of Displaced Persons: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court said that the term ‘obligation’ in Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) may not be always mutual.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court in its recent Judgment, held that the acquisition of land does not violate any constitutional/fundamental right of the displaced persons.
The Court held thus in a batch of Civil Appeals filed by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and others, challenging the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which affirmed the First Appellate Court’s Judgment.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “Thus, from the above-referred judgments, it is evident that acquisition of land does not violate any constitutional/ fundamental right of the displaced persons. However, they are entitled to resettlement and rehabilitation as per the policy framed for the oustees of the project concerned.”
The Bench said that the term ‘obligation’ in Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) may not be always mutual.
ASG Aishwarya Bhati appeared on behalf of the Appellants while Senior Advocate Surender Singh Hooda, Advocates Rajiv Raheja, and Sidharth Mittal appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court in view of the facts of the case, noted, “Although we are not convinced with the line of reasoning adopted by the trial court while allowing the suit as referred to above, as affirmed upto the High Court yet even assuming for the moment that the advertisement was not in conformity with the Scheme of 1992 there is no explanation worth the name at the end any of the oustees why the suits were instituted after a lapse of almost 14 to 20 years, more particularly, when the land of respective oustees came to be acquired in 1992.”
The Court remarked that when the scheme in question specifically provides that an oustee shall file an application in a specified format with deposit of the requisite amount towards earnest money then it is a part of the obligation on the part of the oustee to do so before he calls upon the State to allot the plot in accordance with the terms of the scheme.
“By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the case on hand is one of recurring cause of action so as to bring the suit within the period of limitation though instituted almost after a period of 14-20 years. … In such circumstances referred to above, we could have taken the view that the suits themselves were not maintainable as they should have been dismissed only on the ground of limitation far from being not maintainable under Section 39 of the Act 1963”, it added.
The Court said that a relief which is not amenable for exercising judicial discretion of the Court cannot be granted by way of a mandatory injunction and it should satisfy not only breach of an obligation and the necessity of its prevention, but also the availability of judicial discretion to be exercised.
“A mere breach of an obligation or necessity to prevent the same alone cannot be brought under the purview of mandatory injunction unless the same is amenable for exercising discretion by the Court”, it further observed.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the Respondents are not entitled to claim as a matter of legal right relying on the decision of Brij Mohan that they should be allotted plots as oustees only at the price as determined in the 1992 policy. It also added that they are entitled at the most to seek the benefit of the 2016 policy for the purpose of allotment of plots as oustees.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Appeals and directed the Registry to circulate the copy of the Judgment to all the High Courts.
Cause Title- Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 843)
