HARI RAM & ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

                       [2010] 2 S.C.R. 756


A                       HARi RAM & ANR.
                                 v.
                   STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 5440 of 2000)

                       FEBRUARY 11, 2010
B
                [D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]

        Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 48, 4 and 6 -
   Notification and declaration for acquisition of large tract of
C land for public purpose - Representation for release from
   acquisition - State Government releasing land of similarly
   situated landowners from acquisition but rejected appellants'
  representation who were similarly placed - Challenge to -
  Held: Where State Government exercises its power uls..48 for
o withdrawal from acquisition in respect of a particular land,
  similarly situated landowners have right of similar treatment
  by State Government - Government is duty bound to act with
  substantial fairness and consistency in considering the
  representations of such landowners - It cannot pick and
E choose some landowners and release their land from
  acquisition and deny the same benefit to others - On facts,
  State Government did not consider representation of
  appellants by applying the same standards which were
  applied to other land owners - No uniform policy with regard
F to release of land from acquisition existed - Thus, action of
  State Government is violative of Article 14 and discriminatory
  - State directed to issue appropriate orders in respect of
  appellants' lands as done in the matters of other landowners
  - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14.

G       The notification was issued u/s. 4 of the Land
    Acquisition Act, 1894 proposing to acquire large tract of
    land. The land owners filed objections. The concerned
    Land Acquisition Officer released lands of some of the
    landowners and issued declaration u/s. 6 of the Act in
H                               756
 HARi RAM & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.             757


respect of the remaining lands. Various landowners filed A
writ petitions challenging the notifications u/ss. 4 and 6
of the Act; and also prayed for release of their lands.·
During pendency thereof, a Joint Inspection Committee
submitted its report. In view of the recommendations, the
High Court ordered release of land in favour of 22 B
landowners and dismissed the writ petitions of the other
petitioners including the appellants. The remaining
landlords applied u/s. 48 of the Act for release of their
land from acquisition. The State Government released the
land of several landowners from acquisition except the c
appellants. Aggrieved, appellants filed appeals before this
Court. During pendency, this Court directed the State
Government to consider the representation of the
appellants for release of their land from acquisition. The
appellants made representations and the' same were D
rejected on basis of the policy dated Octo~er 26, 2007.
    The question for consideration in these 'appeals was
whether the action of the State Government in rejecting
the appellants' representations for withdrawal from
acquisition of their land is an ultra vires act and            E
discriminatory.

    Allowing the appeals, the Court

     HELD: 1. It is true that any action or order contrary     F
to law does not confer any right upon any person for
similar treatment. It is equally true that a landowner
whose land has been acquired for public purpose by
following the prescribed procedure cannot claim as a
matter of right for release of his/her land from acquisition
but where the State Government exercises its power             G
under section 48 of the Act for withdrawal from
acquisition in respect of a particular land, the landowners
who are similarly situated have right of similar treatment
by the State Government. Equality of citizens' rights is
                                                               H
    758    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A one of the fundamental pillars on which edifice of rule of
  law rests. All actions of the State have to be fair and for
  legitimate reasons. The Government has obligation of
  acting with substantial fairness and consistency in
  considering the. representations of the landowners for
B withdrawal from acquisition whose lands have been
  acquired under the same acquisition proceedi.ngs. The
  State Government cannot pick and choose some
  landowners and release their land from acqui!.~tion and
  ~eny the same benefit to other landowners by creating
c artificial distinction. Passing different orders in exercise
  of its power under section 48 of the Act in respect of
  persons similarly situated relating to same acquisition
  proceedings and for same public purpose is definitely
  violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and must be· held
  to be discriminatory. [Para 24] [782-F-H; 783-A-C]
0
       2.1. Lands of more than 40 landowners out of the
  same acquisition proceedings have been ·released by the
  State Government u/s. 48 of the Act. Some of the release
  orders have be_e_IJ passed in respect of landowners who
E had not challenged the acquisition proceedings and
  some of them had challenged the acquisition
  proceedings before the High Court and whose cases
  were not recommended by Joint Inspection Committee
  for withdrawal from acquisition and whose writ petitions
F were dismissed. Some of these landowners had only
  vacant plots of land and there was no construction at all.
  In most of these cases, the award has been passed and,
  thereafter, the State Government has withdrawn from
  acquisition. It is not the case of the respondents that
G withdrawal from acquisition in favour of such
  landowners has been in violation of any statutory
  provision or contrary to law or was wrong action on their
  part or It was done due to some mistake or a result of
  fraud or corrupt motive. There is nothing to even remotely
H
 HARi RAM & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.             759


suggest that the persons whose lands have been                 A
released have derived the benefit illegally. [Para 24] [781-
G-H; 782-A-D]

      2.2. It is an admitted case of the respondents that
 prior to October 26, 2007, the State of Haryana had no 8
 uniform policy governing the release of land from
 acquisition under section 48 of the Act. Although
 respondents submitted that matter relating to release of
 land from acquisition was governed from time to time by
 various guidelines/parameters set out in intra-office C
 communications governing individual acquisition, no
such guidelines/parameters have been placed on record
 except a letter dated June 26, 1991 pertaining to review
 progress of the various schemes of HUDA. The only
 guideline discernible from the said letter is that survey of
existing construction should be done before notification D
 is issued under section 4 of the Act; that existing factory
 should not be acquired and it should be released from
 the proceedings of section 4 notification and that
 constructed area of 'A' and 'B' grade should be left out
 of acquisition. The policy articulated in the letter thus, E
hardly helps the respondents. Neither the said policy nor
any other policy has been followed by the State
Government while releasing land of various landowners
whose lands have been acquired in the same acquisition
proceedings. As a matter of fact, the only policy that F
seems to have been followed is: you show me the face
and I'll show you the rule. Insofar as policy of 2007 is
concerned, apparently that has not been applied to any
of the landowners whose land was acquired along with
the appellants' land under the same acquisition G
proceedings and released later on. When this Court
directed to the State Government by order dated August
19, 2008 to consider release of the land of the appellants
from acquisition, obviously the State Government was
required to consider the representations of the appellants H
    760      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A by applying the same standards as were applied to other
  landowners whose lands were acquired for the same
  purpose and under the same acquisition proceedings
  and released later on. However, the representations made
  by the appellants were rejected by relying upon the
B policy dated October 26, 2007 which on its face is
  erroneous and unsustainable in law. [Paras 19 and 20]
  [733-0-F; 774-E-H; 775-A-D]

       2.3. As regards the guidelines provided in the letter
C dated June 26, 1991, classification on the basis of nature
  of construction cannot be validly made and such policy
  is not based on intelligible differentia and a rational basis.
  What appears from the available material is that for
  release of the lands under the subject acquisition, no
  policy has been adhered to. This leads to an irresistible
D conclusion that no firm policy with regard to release of
  land from acquisition existed. [Para 24] [782-D-F]

          Sube Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2001)
    7 SCC 541, Relied on.
E
       2~4. By order dated August 19, 2008, this Court gave
  an opportunity to the State Government to consider the
  representations of the appellants for release of their land
  and pass appropriate order but the State Government
F considered their representations in light of the policy
  dated October 26, 2007 ignoring and overlooking the fact
  that for none of the landowners whose lands have been
  released from acquisition, the policy dated October 26,
  2007 was applied. The State Government has sought to
  set up make believe grounds to justify its action that
G development planning has been kept into consideration
  and that the appellants have been offered developed plots
  of double the area of construction while the fact of the
  matter is that in some cases where the plots were vacant
  and had no construction, the entire plot has been
H released from acquisition and also the cases where one
  HARi RAM & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 761


room or two rooms construction was existing, the whole          A
of plot has been released. [Para 24] [783-D-G]

     2.5. While releasing land of more than 40 landowners
having plots of size from 150 sq. yards to 1500 sq. yards,
if development plan did not get materially disturbed in the     8
opinion of the State Government, the same opinion must
hold good for the appellants' lands as well. It is unfair on
the part of the State Government in not considering
representations of the appellants by applying the same
standards which were applied to other landowners while          C
withdrawing from acquisition of their land under the
same acquisition proceedings. If this Court does not
correct the wrong action of the State Government, it may
leave citizens with the belief that what counts for the
citizens is right contacts with right persons in the State
Government and that judicial proceedings are not                D
efficacious. The action of State Government in treating
the present appellants differently although they are
situated similar to the landowners whose lands have
been released can not be countenanced and has to be
declared bad in law. [Para 24] [783-G-H; 784-A-C]               E

     2.6. The order of the State Government dated
September 29, 2008 is set aside. The respondent no.1-
State of Haryana is directed to issue appropriate order/s
concerning the appellants' lands on the same terms and          F
in the same manner as has been done in the matters of
SD, RK, MR and others. The portion of the lands which
in the layout plan forms part of roads or common sites
or public utility area should not be considered for
release. [Para 25] [784-C-E]
                                                                G
    Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v.
Dau/at Mal Jain and Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 35; Ja/andhar
Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh (1999) 3 SCC 494;
Union of India and Anr. v. International Trading Co. and Anr.
                                                                H
    762      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A (2003) 5 SCC 437; Ved Prakash and Ors. v. Ministry of
  Industry, Lucknow and Anr. (2003) 9 SCC 542; Anand
  Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2005) 9 SCC 164;
  Vishal Properties (P) Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
  Ors. (2007) 11 SCC 172; Jagdish Chand and Anr. v. State
B of Haryana and Anr. (2005) 10 SCC 162, referred to.

                        Case Law Reference:
          (1997) 1 sec 35        Referred to.       Paras 7, 11
          (1999) 3 sec 494       Referred to.       Paras 7, 12
c
          (2003) 5 sec 437       Referred to.       Paras 7, 13
          (2003) 9 sec 542       Referred to.       Paras 7, 14
          (2005) 9 sec 164       Referred to.       Paras 7, 15
D
          (2001) 11 sec 112      Referred to.       Paras 7, 16
          (2005) 1o sec 162      Referred to.       Paras 7, 18
          (2001) 1 sec 545       Relied on.         Paras 20
E       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    5540 of 2000.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 13.8.1998 of the High
    Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Writ Petition No.
F   15002 of 1995.

                               WITH

    C.A. No. 5441, 5442, 5443, 5444, 5545, 5446, 5449 of 2000.

G        Harinder Mohan Singh, Kaushal Yadav, Durgesh Yadav,
    Pradeep Yadav, S.B. Khan, R.K.Kapoor, Shweta Kapoor,
    Harish C. Pani R. Pathan, Anis Ahmed Khan, Aseem Mehrotra,
    Abhijat P. Medh, U.S. Prasad (NP), Govind Goel, Nitin Singh,
    Ambuj Agarwal, Kamal Mohan Gupta for the appearing parties.
H
  HARi RAM & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                 763


     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                      A

     R.M. LODHA, J. 1. This group of eight appeals involves
identical controversy and, hence, all these appeals were heard
together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
As a matter of fact, five appeals (5440/2000, 5442/2000, 5443/       B
2000, 5444/2000 and 5445/2000) have been disposed of vide
common judgment dated August 13, 1998 by the Division
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The other three
appeals (5449/2000 5441/2000 and 5446/2000) have been
disposed of by the High Court vide separate judgments dated          C
March 26, 1998, May 18, 1998 and August 13, i 998
respectively.

      2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgments
and, therefore, we do not deem it necessary to repeat the same.
 Suffice, however, to say that large tract of land admeasuring       D
 184.56 acres situate at Narnaul was proposed to be acquired
for Urban Mini Estate by the Haryana Urban Development
Authority (HUDA) and, for the said public purpose, notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,
'Act') was issued on October 30, 1992. Many owners whose             E
lands were sought to be acquired filed objections under Section
5-A of the Act before the concerned Land Acquisition Officer.
Pursuant to these objections, land admeasuring 11.55 acres
was excluded and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was
made in respect of 173.01 acres on October 28, 1993. Seventy         F
eight landowners filed 32 writ petitions in the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana challenging the notifications under
Sections 4 and 6 of the Act on diverse grounds. Inter alia, in
these writ petitions, the writ petitioners also prayed for release
of their respective lands. At this stage, it may also be noticed     G
that although declaration under Section 6 was made in respect
of 173.01 acres but award was passed for land admeasuring
172.57 acres only as the State Government is said to have
decided to release land of 13 landowners admeasuring 0.44
acres for which ultimately release order was passed on
                                                                     H
    764      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010] 2 S.C.R.

                             •
A   February 28, 1997.

          3. Reverting back to the writ petitions, it transpires that
    during their pendency, Chief Administrator, HUDA-cum-
    Director, Urban Estates stated before the Division Bench on
B   January 8, 1998 that HUDA was prepared to appoint a
    committee to inspect the site and make recommendations
    whether the land of the writ petitioners could be released or not.
    Accordingly, a Joint Inspection Committee was constituted
    comprising of Superintending Engineer, HUDA, Gurgaon; Land
C   Acquisition Officer, Gurgaon and District Town and Country
    Planner, Narnaul under the Chairmanship of Administrator,
    HUDA, Gurgaon. The Committee carried out spot inspection
    of the land owned by the petitioners and submitted its report
    before the Division Bench on February 13, 1998. Insofar as the
    present appellants are concerned, the Joint Inspection
D   Committee did not recommend release of their land from
    acquisition. The High Court took into consideration the report
    submitted by the Joint Inspection Committee and keeping in
    view the recommendations made by it ordered release of land
    in favour of 22 owners and dismissed the writ petition of other
E   petitioners including the present appellants.

       4. It is pertinent to mention here that at least four petitioners
  whose writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court on the
  ground that Joint Inspection Committee had not recommended
F release of their land, later on applied under Section 48 of the
  Act and by separate orders the Government released their land
  from acquisition. It also appears that some of the owners
  although did not challenge the acquisition in the court but
  represented to the Government for release of their land from
G acquisition and their lands were also released.

        5. During the pendency of these appeals, this Court vide
    order dated August 19, 2008, keeping in view the earlier orders
    passed by this Court and the affidavit in-reply dated June 27,
    2008 (filed in Court on July 8, 2008) by Financial Commissioner
H
     HARi RAM & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.              765
                   [R.M. LODHA, J.]

and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Town and          A
Country Planning and Urban Estate Department, Chandigarh
and the available material granted liberty to the appellants to
make representation(s) to the State Government for release of
their land from acquisition and the State Government was
directed to consider such representation(s) and pass                B
appropriate order/s within time granted therein.

     6. In pursuance of the order dated August 19, 2008, the
appellants made representations before the State Government.
The lands owned by them admeasure between 300 sq. yards
to 1600 sq. yards. However, the representations made by the         C
appellants came to be rejected on September 29, 2008 on the
basis of the policy dated October 26, 2007.

      7. We heard learned counsel for the parties at quite some
length on various dates. The principal grievance raised by the      D
appellants is that they have been discriminated by the State
Government in not releasing their land although land of similar
situated persons in identical facts and circumstances has been
released. On the other hand, Mr. Govind Goel, learned counsel
for the respondents justified the action of the State Government    E
and submitted that by an elaborate and speaking order, the
State Government has rejected the appellants' prayer of
release of their land from acquisition and there is no infirmity
in the said order. Mr. Govind Goel, learned counsel contended
that plea regarding discrimination is fallacious as release of      F
land of few owners after the impugned judgment cannot provide
permissible basis for advancing the plea of discrimination,
especially in the absence of any legal right for release. In this
regard, he relied upon decisions of this Court in the case of
Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipurv. Dau/at Mal        G
Jain & Others1, Ja/andhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran
Singh 2, Union of India and Another v. International Trading

1.    (1997) 1 sec 35.
2.    (1999) 3 sec 494.                                             H
    766       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010) 2 S.C.R.


A Co. and Another3, Ved Prakash and Others v. Ministry of
  Industry, Lucknow and Another, Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State
  of Haryana and Others5, and Vishal Properties (P) Limited v.
  State of Uttar Pradesh and Others6 • He also referred to
  decisions of this Court in Sube Singh and Others v. State of
B Haryana and Others7 and Jagdish Chand & Anr. v. State of
  Haryana and Anr8.

       8. Mr. Govind Goel, learned counsel for the respondents
  also submitted that development planning and the parameters
  of release of constructed area along with proportionate area
C were kept in view while considering the representations made
  by the appellants. He would submit that instead of disturbing·
  the entire layout plan and leaving the released area on the spot,
  the appellants have been offered a fully developed plot in the
  same septor of a size of land to which they became entitled on
D the basis of the constructed area in their land.

          9. The only question that falls for our consideration in this
    group of appeals is whether the action of the State Government
    in rejecting the appellants' representations for withdrawal from
E   acquisition oftheir land is an ultra vires act and discriminatory?

          10. Section 48 of the Act empowers the Government to
    withdraw from the acquisition of the land provided possession
    has not been taken. The said power is given to the Government
    by a statutory provision and is not restricted by any condition
F   except that such power must be exercised before possession
    is taken. The statutory provision contained in Section 48 does
    not provide for any particular procedure for withdrawal from
    acquisition.
G   3.   (2003) 5 sec 437.
    4.   (2003) 9 sec 542.
    5.   (2005) 3 sec 164.
    6.   (2007) 11 sec 112.
    1.   (2001) 1 sec 545.
H a.     (2005) 1o sec 162.
 HARi RAM & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                     767
               [R.M. LODHA, J.]

     11. Before we consider the question further, a look at the         A
decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondents at
this stage would be appropriate. In the case of Secretary,
Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur1, the question that arose
before this Court was whether High Court was right in directing
allotment of the lands to the respondents therein since allotment       B
made to others had become final and denial thereof to the
respondents would amount to violation of equality clause
enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Dealing with the said
question, this Court observed :

     "13. . ........ The intention behind the government actions        C
     and purposes is to further the public welfare and the
     national interest. Public good is synonymous with protection
     of the interests of the citizens as a territorial unit or nation
     as a whole. It also aims to further the public policies. The
     limitations of the policies are kept along with the public         D
     interest to prevent the exploitation or misuse or abuse of
     the office or the executive actions for personal gain or for
     illegal gratification:

     14. The so-called public policy cannot be a camouflage for         E
     abuse of the power and trust entrusted with a public
     authority or public servant for the performance of public
     duties. Misuse implies doing of something improper."

      12. In Jalandhar Improvement Trust2 , this Court was
 concerned with the claim of the respondents being "local               F
 displaced persons" to a plot each in lieu of the lands acquired
 by the Trust. The plea of the respondents was that Trust had
 made similar preferential allotments as "local displaced
persons" in favour of other persons. While considering the said
claim of the respondents, this Court held, "if it was not within        G
the scope of the rules then even those allotments in favour of
other persons will not create a right in the respondents to claim
equality with them; maybe, if the allotments were made wrongly
in favour of· those persons, the same may become liable for
                                                                        H
    768       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010) 2 S.C.R.


A   cancellation, if permissible in .aw, but that will not create an
    enforceable right on the respondents to claim similar wrongful
    allotments in their favour''.

        13. While dealing with the scope of judicial review in the
    matter of policy decision of Government, this Court in
8
    lntemational Trading Co. 3 held :

          "14. It is trite law that Article 14 of the Constitution applies
          also to matters of governmental policy and if the policy or
          any action of the Government, even in contractual matters,
c         fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be
          unconstitutional.

          15. While the discretion to change the policy in exercise
          of the executive power, when not trammelled by any statute
D         or rule is wide enough, what -is imperative and implicit in
          terms of Article 14 is that a change in policy must be made
          fairly and should not give the impression that it was so
          done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria. The wide sweep
          of Article 14 and the requirement of every State action
          qualifying for its validity on this touchstone irrespective of
E
          the field of activity of the State is an accepted tenet. The
          basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the
          State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is
          the heartbeat of fair play. Actions are amenable, in the
          panorama of judicial review only to the extent that the State
F         must act validly for a discernible reason, not whimsically
          for any ulterior purpose. The meaning and true import and
          concept of arbitrariness is more easily visualized than
          precisely defined. A question whether the impugned action
          is arbitrary or not is to be ultimately answered on the facts
G         and circumstances of a given case. A basic and obvious
          test to apply in such cases is to see whether there is any
          discernible principle emerging from the impugned action
          and if so, does it really satisfy the test of reasonableness.

H
 HARi RAM & ANR. v. SlATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                  769
               [R.M. LODHA, J.]

    16. Where a particular mode is prescribed for doing an           A
    act and there is no impediment in adopting the procedure,
    the deviation to act in a different manner which does not
    disclose any discernible principle which is reasonable itself
    shall be labelled as arbitrary. Every State action must be
    informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed         B
    by reason is per se arbitrary."

     14. In Ved Prakash and Others4, this Court directed the
concerned authority to consider representations of the owners
for release of their land from acquisition under Section 48 of       C
the Act. This is how the Court considered the matter:

    "17. It is no doubt true that conclusion on Point 1 raised
    in para 11 of the judgment in the case of Om Prakash was
    recorded against the State but ultimately effective and
    operative order is to be seen in paras 31 and 32 of the          D
    said judgment. The ultimate direction was to consider the
    representations of the appellants for releasing the lands
    from acquisition under Section 48(1) of the Act on being
    satisfied of the five aspects mentioned in para 31 of the
    judgment. It is also made clear in the said paragraph that       E
    this Court did not express any opinion on the question
    whether the appellants' lands had such abadi on the date
    of Section 4 notification which would attract the State
    policy of not acquiring such lands and whether such policy
    had continued thereafter at the stage of Section 6               F
    notification of 7-1-1992 and whether such policy was still
    current and operative at the time when the appellants'
    representations came up for consideration of appropriate
    authorities of the State Government. It is further stated that
    it will be for the State authorities to take the informed
                                                                     G
    decision in this connection. In the same paragraph, it is
    stated that:

           "We may not be understood to have stated anything
           on this aspect, nor are we suggesting that the State
           must release these lands from acquisition if the          H
    770       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A                State authorities are not satisfied about the merits
                 of the representations."

          This Court went on to say in para 32 that the entire matter
          is left at large for the consideration of the State authorities
          on the appellants' representations. It is further stated that
B
          if the representations were made within the given time,
          then the appropriate authority of the State Government shall
          consider their representations regarding the feasibility of
          releasing of such lands from acquisition under Section
          48(1) of the Act on the ground that there were "abadis" on
c         these lands at the relevant time and are governed by any
          existing State policy for releasing such lands from
          acquisition.

          18. Thus, it is clear that it was open to the State authorities
D         to consider regarding the feasibility of releasing such lands
          from acquisition under Section 48(1) of the Act after taking
          into consideration the observations made and directions
          given in paras 31 and 32 as aforementioned. We have
          already noticed above that the competent authority of the
E         State gave hearing to the appellants, considered the
          evidence and material placed on record and examined the
          contentions raised on behalf of the parties in compliance
          with the directions given and observations made in paras
          31 and 32 of the judgment of this Court. The State authority
F         came to the conclusion for the reasons already stated
          above that having regard to various aspects including
          development scheme, it was found not feasible to release
          the lands of the appellants under Section 48(1) of the Act.
          The High Court did not find any good ground to disagree
          with the findings of fact recorded by the State authority and
G
          also found that the State authorities duly considered the
          directions given and observations made by this Court as
          contained in paras 31 and 32 of the judgment."

       15. In Anand Buttons Ltd.5, the contention advanced by
H the appellants before this Court was that the decision of the
 HARi RAM & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                     771
               [R.M. LODHA, J.]

State Government in not granting exemption from acquisition             A
to their lands was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article
14 of the Constitution. Dealing with the said contention, this
Court obseNed :

     "13. It is trite law that not only land but also structures on     8
     land can be acquired under the Act. As to whether in a
     given set of circumstances certain land should be
     exempted from acquisition only for the reason that some
     construction had been carried out, is a matter of policy,
     and not of law. If after considering all the circumstances,        C
     the State Government has taken the view that exemption
     of the lands of the appellants would render askew the
     development scheme of the industrial estate, it is not
     possible for the High Court or this Court to interfere with
     the satisfaction of the authorities concerned. We see no
     ground on which the appellants could have maintained that          D
     their lands should be exempted from acquisition. Even if
     three of the parties had been wrongly exempted from
     acquisition, that gives no right to the appellants to seek
     similar relief."
                                                                        E
      16. In the case of Vishal Properties (P) Limited3, this Court
reiterated the legal position that : (i) Article 14 is not meant to
perpetuate an illegality. It provides for positive equality and not
negative equality; (ii) Courts cannot issue a direction that the
same mistake be perpetuated on the ground of discrimination             F
or hardship; (iii) Any action/order contrary to law does not
confer any right upon any person for similar treatment and; (iv)
An order made in favour of a person in violation of the
prescribed procedure cannot form a legal premise for any other
person to claim parity with the said illegal or irregular order. A      G
judicial forum cannot be used to perpetuate the illegalities.

     17. In Sube Singh7 , while dealing with the contention that
the decision of the State Government in not accepting the
prayer of the petitioners for exclusion of their property from
                                                                        H
    772       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [201 O] 2 S.C.R.


A acquisition is arbitrary and discriminatory inasmuch as in the
  case of owners of other lands lying within the area notified who
  had sought exclusion of their property on the ground of existing
  structures, the prayer was accepted and the lands were
  excluded from acquisition and the response of the State
B Government that as per Policy, the State Government has
  excluded from acquisition, 'A' Class constructions and since
  the constructions on the petitioners' land were either 'B' Class
  or 'C' Class, their land could not have been excluded, this Court
  held that such policy was not based on intelligible differentia
c and a rational basis germane to the purpose. It was held :

          "10. . ..... It remains to be seen whether the purported
          classification of existing structures into 'A', 'B' and 'C'
          Classes is a reasonable classification having an intelligible
          differentia and a rational basis germane to the purpose. If
D         the State Government fails to support its action on the
          touchstone of the above principle, then this decision has
          to be held as arbitrary and discriminatory. It is relevant to
          note here that the acquisition of the lands is for the purpose
          of planned development of the area which includes both
E         residential and commercial purposes. That being the
          purpose of acquisition, it is difficult to accept the case of
          the State Government that certain types of structures which
          according to its own classification are of 'A' Class can be
          allowed to remain while other structures situated in close
F         vicinity and being used for same purposes (residential or
          commercial) should be demolished. At the cost of
          repetition, it may be stated here that no material was
          placed before us to show the basis of classification of the
          existing structures on the lands proposed to be acquired.
G         This assumes importance in view of the specific contention
          raised on behalf of the appellants that they have pucca
          structures with RC roofing, mosaic flooring etc. No attempt
          was also made from the side of the State Government to
          place any architectural plan of different types of structures
H         proposed to be constructed on the land notified for
  HARi RAM & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 773
                [R.M. LODHA, J.]

     acquisition in support of its contention that the structures    A
     which exist on the lands of the appellants could not be
     amalgamated into the plan.

     11. On the facts and circumstances of the case revealed
     from the records, we are persuaded to accept the                8
     contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the
     rejection of the request of the appellants for exclusion of
     their land having structures on them was not based on a
     fair and reasonable consideration of the matter. We are
     of the view that such action of the Government is arbitrary     C
     and discriminatory ...... "

      18. In the case of Jagdish Chanel', this Court issued the
directions as were given in the case of Sube Singh7 but
clarified that these directions are given on the particular facts
of the case and are not intended for any general application.        D

      19. It is an admitted case of the respondents that prior to
October 26, 2007, the State of Haryana had no uniform policy
governing the release of land from acquisition under Section
4~ of the Act. Although learned counsel for the respondents          E
submitted that matter relating to release of land from acquisition
was governed from time to time by various guidelines/
parameters set out in intra-office communications governing
individual acquisition, no such guidelines/parameters have been
placed on record except a letter dated June 26, 1991 sent by
                                                                     F
the Chief Administrator, HUDA to the Additional Director,
Urban Estate, Haryana, Manimajra and the Chief Controller of
Finance, HUDA, Manimajra pertaining to review progress of the
various schemes of HUDA which reads thus :

    "1. That a land bank should be created in the current            G
    financial year. Chief Controller of Finance, HUDA should
    discuss the matter with Additional Director, Urban Estate
    for financial planning, so that land bank could be treated.

    2. That during the current year 2000 acres more land can         H
    774       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A         be acquired provided additional amount is advanced for
          the purpose.

          3. That financial fore-cast should be prepared every month
          for land lying notified under section 6 of the Land
          Acquisition Act, should acquired. (sic)
B
          4. That existing factories should not be acquired and
          should be released from the proceedings of the section 4
          notification. Constructed area of 'A' and 'B' grade should
          be left out of acquisition.
c
          5. That survey of existing construction be done before the
          notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.

          6. That the area which is liable to be left out and of
          acquired (sic) should be left out at the time of decision on
D
          the report under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act.
          No notification earlier issued under Land Acquisition Act
          should lapse.

          7. That reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition
E         Act should not be delayed. Pendency of reference has
          financial implication."

       20. The only guideline discernible from the aforesaid letter
  dated June 26, 1991 is that survey of existing construction
F should be done before notification is issued under Section 4
  of the Land Acquisition Act; that existing factory should not be
  acquired and it should be released from the proceedings of
  Section 4 notification and that constructed area of 'A' and 'B'
  grade should be left out of acquisition. In Sube Singh7, this
G Court has already held that classification on the basis of nature
  of construction cannot be validly made and such policy is not
  based on intelligible differentia and a rational basis germane
  to the purpose. The policy articulated in the letter dated June
  26, 1991, thus, hardly helps the respondents. Rather it is seen
  that neither the aforesaid policy nor any other policy has been
H
 HARi RAM & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                 775
               [R.M. LODHA, J.]

followed by the State Government while releasing land of           A
various landowners whose lands have been acquired in the
same acquisition proceedings. As a matter of fact, the only
policy that seems to have been followed is : you show me the
face and I'll show you the rule. Insofar as policy of 2007 is
concerned, apparently that has not been applied to any of the      B
landowners whose land was acquired along with the appellants'
land under the same acquisition proceedings and released
later on. We are pained to observe that when this Court directed
to the State Government vide order dated August 19, 2008 to
consider release of the land of the appellants from acquisition,   c
obviously the State Government was required to consider the
representations of the appellants by applying the same
standards as were applied to other landowners whose lands
were acquired for the same purpose and under the same
acquisition proceedings and released later on. However, the
                                                                   0
representations made by the appellants were rejected by relying
upon the policy dated October 26, 2007 which on its face is
erroneous and unsustainable in law.

      21. Now, we advert to the few instances of landowners who
filed writ petitions before the High Court challenging the same    E
notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and in whose
matters Joint Inspection Committee did not recommend
release of their lands from acquisition and the High Court
dismissed their writ petitions, yet later on their lands were
released from acquisition by the State Government on the           F
representations made by them in exercise of its power under
Section 48 of the Act.

    Land of Smt. Ram Kala :

          She is owner of land admeasuring 600 sq. yards.          G
    There is no construction in the said plot. She challenged
    the acquisition notifications vide CWP No. 18087 of 1995.
    The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by
    common judgment dated August 13, 1998 as the Joint
                                                                   H
    776       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A         Inspection Committee had not recommended release of
          her land. She then applied for release of her land from
          acquisition under Section 48 of the Act. Vide order dated
          November 6, 2001, her land was released. The said order
          reads thus:
B          "From:
                 Director,
                 Urban Estate Department, Haryana, Panchkla.
          To
                 Administrator, HUDA
c                Gurgaon.
                 Memo No.S-1-2001/8226
                 Dated
           Subject:- Release of land in Sector 1 Narnaul (Smt. Ram
                Kala w/o Hari Singh).
D
                On the above subject, in reference to your letter
          bearing Memo No.1650 dated 23.01.01.

                2. In this regard, you are informed that the
          Government has agreed for release the land of Smt. Ram
E
          Kala w/o Shri Han Singh, Rio Narnaul, bearing Khasra
          No.87211278, 1055/3, area 600 sq. yards, falling in Sector
          1, Narnaul for residential purpose on the usual conditions.
          The condition of recovery of development charges
          proportionately would be applicable on the party.
F
                 3. In pursuance of letter bearing memo No.2280-72
          dated 04.08.86 and letter memo No.23640-63 dated
          '18.9.2000 and by keeping in view the instructions, first of
          all the amount of development charges is to be recovered
G         from the party and thereafter to send the sanctioned
          agreement to the Head Office for finalizing the agreement.

                4. Party would be required to comply with conditions
          of release as per the agreement to be executed.
H
 HARi RAM & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                  777
               [R.M. LODHA, J.]

           Thus, you are requested to send the agreement after       A
     getting it executed from the party with regard to all general
     conditions.
                                                           Sci/-
                                            Additional Director
                                      Urban Estate Department        B
                                          Haryana, Panchkula."
     Land of Mani Ram :

      He is owner of plot of land admeasuring 800 sq. yards.
According to him, the plot had some commercial and                   C
residential construction. He challenged the acquisition
notifications vide CWP No. 14583of1995. His writ petition was
dismissed by the High Court on May 11, 1998 on the basis of
the report of the Joint Inspection Committee as it did not
recommend release of his land. He, thereafter, applied for           D
release of his land from acquisition to the State Government
under Section 48. His representation was accepted and
release order came to be issued (except road portion) on July
9, 2003 on the condition that he would utilize the land for
conforming use.                                                      E

     Land of Sumitra Devi :

     She is owner of plot of 400 sq. yards having no
construction at all. She challenged the acquisition notifications
along with one of the appellants herein - Hari Ram (Civil Appeal     F
No. 5440 of 2000) and one Naresh Kumar. Insofar as Naresh
Kumar is concerned, who was owner of land admeasuring 500
sq. yards, the Joint Inspection Committee recommended
exclusion of his land from acquisition and, accordingly, High
Court granted relief to Naresh Kumar. However, insofar as Hari       G
Ram and Sumitra Devi are concerned, their writ petition was
dismissed as the Joint Inspection Committee had not
recommended their land to be released from acquisition. In
respect of the land owned by Sumitra Devi, Joint Inspection
                                                                     H
    778       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (201 O] 2 S.C.R.


A   Committee gave its report thus:

                "The land of the petitioner measures 400 sq. yards
          in area, the location of which is shown on tentative layout
          plan at No. 19C. The plot is vacant at site except boundary
          wall. The details of plot are shown in the site sketch plan
8
          at Annexure 19C. The committee does not recommend its
          release."

        As regards Hari Ram (one of the appellants), the report
    reads thus:
c
                 "The land of the petitioners measure 400 sq. yards
          in area, the location of which is shown on tentative layout
          plan at no. 198. A small room (6' x 6') along with boundary
          wall stand constructed at site prior to notification of land
0         u/s 4. The small room is not inhabited by anyone. The
          c;:onstruction details are shown in the site sketch plan at
          Annexure 198. The committee does not recommend its
          release from acquisition."

       Smt. Sumitra Devi then made representation to the State
E Government for release of her land from acquisition under
  Section 48 of the Act. Initially part of the land was released from
  acquisition but later on by order dated February 7, 2004, her
  entire land stood released from acquisition.

F      22. The State Government had also released land of few
  landowners whose lands were acquired under the same
  acquisition notifications and there was no challenge to the
  acquisition by them but they made representation under Section
  48 of the Act for release of their lands and that prayer was
G acceded to. One of such instances is that of landowner Vinod
  Kumar who is owner of the land admeasuring 800 sq. yards
  having construction of one room and kitchen. His land was
  released from acquisition by the State Government on May 6,
  1999 by the following order;
H
 HARi RAM & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                 779
               [R.M. LODHA, J.]

     "From:                                                        A
              Director,
              Urban Estate Department,
              Haryana, Panchkula.
     To
                                                                   B
              Administrator,
              Haryana, Panchkula.
              Gurgaon.
              Memo No.3506 dated 06.05.1999
              Subject:- Release of land in Sector 1 Narnaul -      C
              Shri Vinod Kumar

           On the above subject, in reference to your letter
     bearing Memo No. T.P.-98/21765 dated 24.12.98.

          In this matter, the Government has decided to return     D
    the land of Khasra No.1052 measuring 800 sq. yards/ built
    up area belonging to Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta in Sector 1
    Narnaul by releasing from acquisition proceedings. All
    conditions would be applicable on the applicant and the
    applicant would have to pay the proportionate development      E
    charges of this land to Haryana Urban Development
    Authority. So you are requested to get the agreement
    executed from the party for all conditions.
                                                          Sd/-
                                                                   F
                                                Addl. Director
                                     Urban Estate Department
                                         Haryana, Panchkula."
     23. There are various orders placed on record evidencing
release of lands from acquisition by the State Government out      G
of same acquisition proceedings. It is not necessary to multiply
such orders; reference to one of such orders would suffice. As
early as on February 28, 1997, land of 13 landowners was
released from acquisition. The said release order reads thus :
                                                                   H
    780        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [201 O] 2 S.C.R.


A         "From
                  The Director,
                  Urban Estate Deptt., Haryana
                  Panchkula.
          To
B
                  The Administrator
                  Haryana Urban Development Authority
                  Gurgaon.
                  Memo No.: 1-971
c                 Dated: 28.02.1997

           Sub: FOR RELEASING THE LAND ACQUIRED IN
                SECTION 1 NARNAUL

                  In connection with aforesaid subject.
D .
                In this connection a decision has been taken by the
          Government and it has agreed to release the land/ structure
          of the below mentioned applicants acquired in sector-1
          Narnaul. A 1 the conditions of release will be applicable on
E         the applicants and they will also have to pay the
          development charges to HUDA according to rules. An
          agreement be also got executed from the parties
          regarding conditions of release. All the parties will have to
          withdraw their cases from the court. The details of the land
F         released is as under:-

      Sr. No.         Name of Party Khasra No.            Area

          1.   Rao Guiab Singh s          1273        300 Sq. Yard

G         2.   Sh. Surender Singh         1294        300 - do-
               son Sh. Surajbhan

          3.   Smt. Krishna Devi          1294        300 -do-
               w/o Bhup Singh

H
 HARi RAM & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                 781
               [R.M. LODHA, J.]

    4.    Sh. Ravinder Singh        1294       300 -do-            A
          s/o Sh. Naresh Singh

     5.   Sh. Om Parkash Son        1297/2    300 -do-
          of Sh Mukh Ram            1100, 1101

     6.   Sh. Ranbr Singh           1297/2     210 -do-            B
          son of Sh. Khushi Ram

     7.   Smt. Babli Devi and       1097/2    300 -do-
          Ram Chander               1100, 1101

    8.    Sh Bhm Singh s/o           1384      300 Sq.Yard
                                                                   c
          Harwai Lal

    9.    Mewa Singh                 1320      150 -do-

     10. Matadin&Prithvi Singh      1320       300 -do-            D

     11. Sh. Rohtash                 1265/2    240 -do-

     12. R.K.Punia                   1057/2    400 -do-

     13. Sh. K.K. Yadav              1058      1200 -do-           E
           You may also verify, if you so like the detail of the
    land released by the Govt. by its decision from the original
    record from the Land Acquisition Officer, Gurgaon. Copy
    of the letter Sr. No.            Dated             from the
                                                                   F
    Land Acquisition Officer Gurgaon alongwith a copy of the
    list of released land is attached herewith.
                                                 Dy. Director
                                  Urban Estate Deptt. Haryana
                                                  Panchkula."      G
     24. As a matter of fact, lands of more than 40 landowners
out of the same acquisition proceedings have been released
by the State Government under Section 48 of the Act. Some
of the release orders have been passed in respect of
landowners who had not challenged the acquisition                  H
    782      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A   proceedings and some of them had challenged the acquisition
    proceedings before the High Court and whose cases were not
    recommended by Joint Inspection Committee for withdrawal
    from acquisition and whose writ petitions were dismissed.
    Some of these landowners had only vacant plots of land and
B   there was no construction at all. In most of these cases, the
    award has been passed and, there~fter, the State Government
    nas withdrawn from acquisition.; It is not the case of the
    respondents that withdrawal from acquisition in favour of such
    landowners has been in violation of any statutory provision or
c   contrary to law. It is also not their case that the release of land
    from acquisition in favour of such landowners was wrong action
    on their part or it was done due to some mistake or a result of
    fraud or corrupt motive. There is nothing to even remotely
    suggest that the persons whose lands have been released
    have derived the benefit illegally. As noticed above, prior to
0
    October 26, 2007, the State Government did not have uniform
    policy concerning withdrawal from acquisition. As regards the
    guidelines provided in the letter dated June 26, 1991, this Court
    has already held that classification on the basis of nature of
    construction cannot be validly made and such policy is not
E   based on intelligible differentia and a rational basis. What
    appears from the available material is that for release of the
    lands under the subject acquisition, no policy has been adhered
    to. This leads to an irresistible conclusion that no firm policy
    with regard to release of land from acquisition existed. It is true
F   that any action.or order contrary to law does not confer any right
    upon any person for similar treatment. It is equally true that a
    landowner whose land has been acquired for public purpose
    by following the prescribed procedure cannot claim as a matter
    of right for release of his/her land from acquisition but where
G   the State Government exercises its power under Section 48 of
    the Act for withdrawal from acquisition in respect of a particular
    land, the landowners who are similarly situated have right of
    similar treatment by the State Government. Equality of citizens'
    rights is one of the fundamental pillars on which edifice of rule     •
H   of law rests. All actions of the State have to be fair and for
 HARi RAM & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                  783
               [RM. LODHA, J.]

legitimate reasons. The Government has obligation of acting         A
with substantial fairness and consistency in considering the
representations of the landowners for withdrawal from
acquisition whose lands have been acquired under the same
acquisition proceedings. The State Government cannot pick
and choose some landowners and release their land from              B
 acquisition and deny the same benefit to other landowners by
 creating artificial distinction. Passing different orders in
exercise of its power under Section 48 of the Act in respect of
persons similarly situated relating to same acquisition
 proceedings and for same public purpose is definitely violative    c
of Article 14 of the Constitution and must be held to be
discriminatory. More so, it is not even the case of the
respondents that release of land from acquisition in favour of
various landowners, as noticed above, was in violation of any
statutory provision or actuated with ulterior motive or done due
                                                                    0
to some mistake or contrary to any public interest. As a matter
of fact, vide order dated August 19, 2008, this Court gave an
opportunity to the State Government to consider the
representations of the appellants for release of their land and
pass appropriate order but the State Government considered
their representations in light of the policy dated October 26,
                                                                    E
2007 ignoring and overlooking the fact that for none of the
landowners whose lands have been released from acquisition,
the policy dated October 26, 2007 was applied. The State
Government has sought to set up make believe grounds to
justify its action that development planning has been kept into     F
consideration and that the appellants have been offered
developed plots of double the area of construction while the fact
of the matter is that in some cases where the plots were vacant
and had no construction, the entire plot has been released from
acquisition and also the cases where one room or two rooms          G
construction was existing, the whole of plot has been released.
While releasing land of more than 40 landowners having plots
of size from 150 sq. yards to 1500 sq. yards, if development
plan did not get materially disturbed in the opinion of the State
Government, the same opinion must hold good for the                 H
    784     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A appellants' lands as well. It is unfair on the part of the State
  Government in not considering representations of the appellants
  by applying the same standards which were applied to other
  landowners while withdrawing from acquisition of their land
  under the same acquisition proceedings. If this Court does not
B correct the wrong action of the State Government, it may leave
  citizens with the belief that what counts for the citizens is right
  contacts with right persons in the State Government and that
  judicial proceedings are not efficacious. The action of State
  Government in treating the present appellants differently
c although they are situated similar to the landowners whose
  lands have been released can not be countenanced and has
  to be declared bad in law.

       25. Consequently, these appeals are allowed and the order
  of the State Government dated September 29, 2008 is set
D aside. The respondent no.1 (State of Haryana) is directed to
  issue appropriate order/s concerning the appellants' lands on
  the same terms and in the same manner as has been done in
  the matters of Sumitra Devi, Ram Kala, Mani Ram and others.
  Obviously, the portion of the lands which in the layout plan forms
E part of roads or common sites or public utility area shall not be
  considered for release. No order as to costs.

    N.J.                                          Appeals allowed.