Holding

The High Court’s orders quashing acquisition were upheld where the land was not yet used for public purpose, but set aside where the land had already been utilized for sewage lines or road widening, as the State’s release of lands was arbitrary and contrary to public interest.

Summary

The State of Haryana had acquired 46.49 acres of land in 1987 for residential and commercial development. Over time most of the land was released, but small parcels remained under acquisition, prompting the original landowners to file writ petitions seeking release on parity with others. The High Court quashed the acquisition and ordered release of the remaining lands, citing discrimination under Article 14. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the State’s arbitrary release of lands was improper, but observed that where the land had already been utilized for public purposes such as sewage lines or road widening, the High Court’s quashing was erroneous. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s orders in the sewage‑line and road‑widening cases, while upholding the release order in the shopping‑mall case. The appeals were allowed in two matters and dismissed in one.

Issues considered

The legality of releasing acquired land that has already been utilized for public purposes.
Whether the High Court erred in quashing acquisition proceedings where the land was required for public infrastructure.
Whether the State’s selective release of land amounts to arbitrary exercise of power violating Article 14.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 4, s. 5A, s. 6

Subjects

land acquisitionrelease of acquired landpublic purposeArticle 14arbitrary exercise of powersewage lineroad wideningshopping mallSupreme Court

Judgment

18 [2023]
SUPREME COURT 3 S.C.R. 18
REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
v.
NIRANJAN SINGH & ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1347-1349 of 2023)
B FEBRUARY 24, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Land Acquisition: Land acquisition proceedings – Releasing
of acquired land – Large chunk of area acquired for development
and utilisation of land as residential and commercial area – Major
C
portion of the land released between the stage of Notification and
the award and after the award – Only small plots of land acquired
– Writ petition by the land owners challenging the same –
Landowners granted liberty to file a representation before the
authorities – Representation seeking release of their acquired land
D on parity with the similarly situated landowners whose land was
released by the State dismissed – However, in writ petitions, the
High Court directed release of the land belonging to the land owners
from the acquisition – On appeal, held: Action of the appellants in
releasing the lands initially in favour of influential persons and,
thereafter, on the basis of various orders passed by the High Court
E
which were never challenged demonstrates the arbitrary exercise
of powers by the appellants in releasing the acquired lands which
as such required for the public purposes – Consideration for future
needs and expansion is to be taken into consideration – Except the
small portion/plot in question, all other major chunk of the land,
F have been released either by the State on its own and/or pursuant
to the orders passed by the High Court – Land was acquired in the
year 1987 but has not been used for the public purpose for which
it was acquired – Thus, the High Court rightly quashed the
acquisition proceedings and directed its release – However, land
which has already been put to use for sewage lines, the land which
G
is needed for the purpose of widening of the road may not be
released and High Court ought not to quash acquisition proceedings
in respect of such lands – High Court erred in directing for the
release of remaining lands acquired – Order passed by the High
Court set aside.
H
18
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. NIRANJAN SINGH & ORS. 19
ETC.

Judicial deprecation: Land acquisition proceedings – A
Releasing of acquired land – Lands acquired for the utilization and
development as residential and commercial area to develop new
sectors by the urban development authority – Acquired lands
released from time to time during the stages of the acquisition
proceedings – Lands released by the State Government initially in
B
favour of the influential persons and thereafter pursuant to the
various orders passed by the High Court which were never
challenged by the State – Held: Is highly depreciable – It
demonstrates the arbitrary exercise of powers by the State in
releasing the acquired lands which as such required for public
purposes – State Government is guardian of the public interest and C
the public – Public interest was required to be considered the
paramount interest rather than releasing the lands at initial stage
in favour of the influential persons.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.1347-
1349 of 2023. D
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.04.2021 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP Nos.6729, 16346 of 2013
and 10452 of 2014.
Alok Sangwan, A.A.G., Sumit Kumar Sharma, Rajat Sangwan,
Dr. Monika Gusain, Gaurav Agrawal, Sahil Tagotra, Abhivyakti Banerjee, E
Advs. for the Appellants.
Neeraj Kumar Jain, Narender Hooda, Sr. Advs., Aabhas
Kshetarpal, Siddhartha Jha, Ms. Priyambika Mk Jha, Sachin Jain, Rajiv
Ranjan Dwivedi, Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, Aditya Mishra, Shaurya
Lamba, Aditya Hooda, Ms. Bano Deswal, Advs. for the Respondents. F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order dated 09.04.2021 passed by the High Court of Punjab G
and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 16346/2013, CWP No. 6729/
2013 and CWP No. 10452/2014, by which, the Division Bench of the
High Court has allowed the said writ petitions and has set aside the
action of the State in declining prayer of the original writ petitioners –
original land owners for release of their respective acquired land(s) and
H
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A consequently, has directed to release their respective acquired land(s)
from acquisition, the State of Haryana and others have preferred the
present appeals. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed in writ petition - CWP No. 10452/2014, the
beneficiaries of the acquisition have also preferred the present appeal
arising out of Diary No. 37052/2022.
B
1.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that Civil Appeal No.
1347/2023 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11842/2022 is concerned, the
same is against the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court in CWP No. 6729/2013. Civil Appeal No. 1348/2023 arising out of
SLP (C) No. 11843/2022 is concerned, the same is against the impugned
C judgment and order passed by the High Court in CWP No. 16346/2013
and Civil Appeal No. 1349/2023 arising out of SLP (C) No. 11844/2022
is concerned, the same is against the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court in CWP No. 10452/2014.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of CWP No. 16346/
D 2013 are considered which was also considered by the High Court as a
lead matter.
FACTS IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.1348 /2023 ARISING OUT
OF CWP NO. 16346/2013

E 2.1 That the State of Haryana issued a notification dated 21.04.1987
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred
to as the Act), intending to acquire the land measuring 35.76 acres for
the development and utilization of land as residential and commercial
Sector 11, Kurukshetra and the same was followed with declaration/
notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 20.04.1988. The objections
F were invited from all the concerned land owners. That thereafter, the
award was pronounced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 12.04.1990
for the land measuring 34.61 acres only. That thereafter, a further
notification was issued by the State of Haryana under Section 4 of the
Act dated 11.02.2002 for acquiring the land measuring 126.30 acres for
G residential, commercial and institutional purposes in Sector 6 and 11,
Kurukshetra. It appears that even before the issuance of notification
under Section 6 of the Act, the land measuring 81.91 acres belonging to
43 land holders came to be released, details of which shall be considered
hereinbelow. That thereafter, except the original writ petitioners of CWP
No. 16346/2013, rest of the lands acquired belonging to the different
H
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. NIRANJAN SINGH & ORS. 21
ETC. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

land holders came to be released from acquisition either by the State A
Government or pursuant to the order(s) passed by the High Court in
various writ petitions, the area of which amounts to 40.80 acres. The
particulars of the land released with respect to the land acquired vide
notification dated 21.04.1987 in tabular form are as under: -
B

C

D

2.2 That thereafter, the original writ petitioners filed the writ petition
before the High Court challenging the acquisition by filing CWP No. E
371/2008 which came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
11.01.2008 by granting liberty to the land owners to file a representation
before the authorities concerned for redressal of their grievance. As a
result of which, the original writ petitioners filed a representation dated
22.01.2008 praying for release of their acquired land on parity with the F
similarly situated persons whose land was released by the State. That
thereafter, after the second round of litigation, the representation came
to be dismissed and the prayer of the original land owners to release
their land from acquisition came to be rejected. The same was the subject
matter of CWP No. 16346/2013 before the High Court.
G
2.3 Now, so far as Civil Appeal arising out of CWP No. 6729/
2013 is concerned, the representation filed by the original land owners
for release of their acquired land came to be rejected vide order dated
15.06.2012, which was the subject matter of CWP No. 6729/2013.

H
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A 2.4 Similarly, original writ petitioner – Anita Kumari Sharma filed
CWP No. 10452/2014 before the High Court rejecting their prayer to
release the land from acquisition.
2.5 By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court
has allowed the said writ petitions and has set aside the orders/notifications
B issued by the Government and the action of the State Government in
declining prayer of the writ petitioners – original land owners for release
of their respective acquired land(s) being violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India by observing that the major chunk of the land
belonging to the similarly situated land owners already stood released.
Consequently, the High Court has directed to release the land belonging
C to the original land owners from the acquisition.
2.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court, the State of Haryana and
others have preferred the present appeals.

D 3. Shri Alok Sangwan, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the
State has vehemently submitted that as such the land in question is needed
by the State and therefore, the High Court has materially erred in directing
to release the land in question from acquisition.
3.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Sangwan, learned AAG
E appearing on behalf of the State that once the lands in question have
been acquired after following the due procedure required under the Act
and thereafter, the award came to be passed and even the compensation
was paid and the possession was taken over and the lands actually vested
in the State Government/acquiring body. It is submitted that therefore,
the High Court has materially erred in directing to release the acquired
F lands from acquisition.
3.2 It is further submitted by learned AAG that the High Court
has not properly appreciated the fact that other lands were released by
the State pursuant to the order(s) passed by the High Court in various
writ petitions.
G
3.3 It is further submitted by learned AAG appearing on behalf of
the State that so far as the land acquired with respect to CWP No.
10452/2014 is concerned, the land in question is already utilized and
used for the sewage line and Rs. 17 crores have been spent in
constructing the sewage line and it is submitted that therefore, if the land
H
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. NIRANJAN SINGH & ORS. 23
ETC. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

is released, as ordered by the High Court, the same shall be against the A
public interest and the entire sewage line which has been constructed
after spending Rs. 17 crores will have to be removed. Shri Gaurav Agrawal,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the residents of the locality has
also vehemently submitted that if the land in question is released from
acquisition as ordered by the High Court in that case the sewage line
B
already constructed will have to be removed which will be against the
public interest and also against the interest of the residents of the locality.
3.4 It is further submitted that so far as the land with respect to
CWP No. 6729/2013 is concerned, the same is required by the State for
widening of the road and therefore, the State was justified in refusing to
release the land from acquisition. C

3.5 Now, so far as the land with respect to CWP No. 16346/2013
is concerned, it is submitted that the said land is required for constructing
the shopping mall and the parking and therefore, the prayer of the original
land owners to release their land(s) from acquisition was rightly rejected
by the authority. D

3.6 Making the above submissions, it is vehemently submitted by
learned AAG that the High Court has materially erred in quashing and
setting aside the orders passed by the State/authority rejecting the prayer
of the original writ petitioners – land owners to release their land(s)
from acquisition and the High Court has materially erred in directing to E
release the acquired land(s) in question from acquisition.
4. While opposing Civil Appeal arising out of CWP No. 16346/
2013, Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently
submitted that in the present case, the State Government has released
the major chunk of the land arising out of the very notification and only, F
small portion of the land belonging to the original writ petitioners have
not been released. He has taken us to the map showing that except the
plot/land in question of the original writ petitioners and others, all other
major chunk of the lands have been released from acquisition. He has
vehemently submitted that out of total land approximately 46.49 acres G
for which the notification under Section 4 was issued, land measuring
10.83 acres came to be excluded at the stage of inquiry under Section 5
A. The award came to be declared with respect to the land measuring
34.61 acres only and thereafter, the land measuring 26.83 acres came to
be further released after the award was passed and the land measuring
H
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A 7.78 acres came to be continued under acquisition, out of which further
two writ petitions are pending with respect to the land measuring 4.056
acres and 1.125 acres and it is submitted that only small plot(s) of the
original writ petitioners have not been released, which has already been
observed and held by the High Court that the same is discriminatory and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
B
4.1 Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned Senior Advocate appearing
on behalf of the original writ petitioners has further submitted that one
Vipin Jindal whose lands was declared under the same notification, filed
writ petition (CWP) No. 3780/2008 before the High Court challenging
the acquisition and also praying for release of the land(s) from acquisition,
C which came to be dismissed by the High Court vide order dated
13.03.2008. It is submitted that the said Vipin Jindal filed civil appeal(s)
before this Court and this Court disposed of the said civil appeal(s) by
permitting the land owner(s) to file a representation before the appropriate
authority of the State Government to release the land from acquisition.
D It is submitted that this Court has specifically observed that somewhat
inconsistent stand has been taken on the part of the State Government
and if, similarly situated persons had been granted relief, the appellant
therein ought to be granted similar relief. It is submitted that thereafter,
land belonging to the said Vipin Jindal has been released by order dated
02.08.2016 on the condition that he will return the compensation amount
E received by him to the department along with interest and he will surrender
the land falling in the road alignment HUDA.
4.2 Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned Senior Advocate appearing
on behalf of the original writ petitioners has also taken us to the judgment
and order passed by the High Court in writ petition No. 5732/1988, by
F which, the High Court has quashed the acquisition. Shri Neeraj Kumar
Jain, learned Senior Advocate has also taken us to the judgment and
order passed by the High Court in CWP No. 11377/1988, by which, the
High Court quashed the acquisition by observing that the State
Government withdrew from acquisition some of the area which belonged
G to the then Speaker of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha and another portion
belonging to the Radha Swami Satsang, Kurukshetra. It is submitted
that therefore, the High Court observed that the decision of the State
Government to continue with the acquisition was arbitrary and violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted by Shri
Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned Senior Advocate that except small parcel/
H
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. NIRANJAN SINGH & ORS. 25
ETC. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

portion of the land belonging to the original writ petitioners all other major A
chunk of the lands/plots have been released and the land in question is
not required now and therefore, there is no valid reason not to release
the land(s) of the original land owners from acquisition. It is submitted
that therefore, the High Court has not committed any error in allowing
the writ petitions and directing the State to release their lands from
B
acquisition on the parity.
4.3 Shri Sachin Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
original writ petitioners in SLP (C) No. 11844/2022 arising out of CWP
No. 10452/2014, though is not disputing that the land in question belonging
to the original writ petitioner has already been utilized and used for sewage
line, submitted that the remaining land after deducting the land already C
used for laying down the pipes be released.
4.4 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ
petitioners in SLP (C) No. 11842/2022 arising out of CWP No. 6729/
2013 has adopted the submissions made by Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain,
learned Senior Advocate. D

5. Having heard Shri Alok Sangwan, learned AAG, appearing on
behalf of the State and Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned Senior Advocate,
appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners in civil appeal arising
out of CWP No. 16346/2013 before the High Court and having gone
through the material on record and the manner in which the State has E
dealt with the acquisition proceedings and has released the lands acquired
from time to time right from the proceedings at the stage of Section 5 A
of the Act and thereafter is highly deprecable. Earlier the lands have
been released by the State Government initially in favour of the influential
persons and thereafter pursuant to the various orders passed by the F
High Court which were never challenged by the State, it demonstrates
the arbitrary exercise of powers by the State in releasing the acquired
lands which as such required for public purposes. At the outset, it is
required to be noted that when the lands are acquired for the utilization
and development as residential and commercial area to develop new
sectors and that too by the urban development authority, the future need G
is required to be considered and the expansion in future is also required
to be taken into consideration and/or bear in mind. The expansion in
future in the next 20-25 years is required to be taken into consideration
and/or is required to be considered when use of such a vast land for the
development of the area/new sectors are required. H
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A 5.1 In the present case, it is not in dispute that large chunk of area
measuring 46.49 acres was acquired as far as back on 21.04.1987. Such
a large chunk of land was acquired for the development and utilization
of land as residential and commercial area in Sector 11, Kurukshetra by
the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). Out of 46.49 acres
of land acquired vide notification under Section 4, 10.83 acres of land
B
came to be excluded from acquisition at the stage of notification under
Section 5 A. Out of remaining 35.66 acres of land, 1.05 acres of land
was released between Section 6 notification and the award. Thereafter,
out of remaining 34.61 acres of land, 26.83 acres of land came to be
released after award dated 12.04.1990. Therefore, the balance land
C remained to the extent of 7.78 acres only, out of which even at present
approximately 6 acres of land acquired is under litigation. Therefore, the
land with respect to the original writ petitioners of CWP No. 16346/2013
is only small plots of the land which remained. If the map produced on
record is considered except the present small portion/plot in question, all
other major chunk of the land, the particulars of which are given as
D
above, have been released either by the State on its own and/or pursuant
to the order(s) passed by the High Court which were never challenged
by the State and it seems that the State was happy with the decision of
the High Court directing to release the lands from acquisition. In the
earlier order passed by this Court in Civil Appeals No. 3235-3237/2015
E with respect to the lands acquired by the very notification, it appears
that this Court took note of the release of the lands by the State
Government upon refund of compensation. This Court took note of the
fact that several land owners whose lands were acquired filed writ
petitions challenging the notification, which writ petitions were however,
withdrawn with liberty to file representations with the State Government
F
and thereafter, the representations were answered in favour of the writ
petitioners by ordering release of the land after refund of compensation.
Therefore, this Court in the case of Vipin Jindal (supra) also relegated/
permitted the said land owner to file a representation by observing that
somewhat inconsistent stand has been taken on the part of the
G Government. That thereafter, the representation of Vipin Jindal has been
considered favourably and his land has been released from acquisition.
5.2 Even from the judgment and order passed by the High Court
in CWP No. 11377/1988, by which, the High Court allowed the said writ
petition and quashed the acquisition with respect to some of the lands
H
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. NIRANJAN SINGH & ORS. 27
ETC. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

acquired by the said notification, it appears that what weighed with the A
High Court was after the notification under Section 6 of the Act, the
Government withdrew from acquisition some of the area which belonged
to the then Speaker of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha and another portion
belonging to the Radha Swami Satsang, Kurukshetra.
5.3 Thus, from the aforesaid, it is apparent that earlier except the B
land in question belonging to the writ petitioners of CWP No. 16346/
2013, all other lands have been released except the small parcel/plot of
the lands belonging to the original writ petitioners. Now, non-release of
land is sought to be justified on the ground that the same is now proposed
to be used as shopping mall and parking. It is required to be noted that
the land in question has been acquired in the year 1987 along with the C
total land measuring 46.49 acres, out of which, except the present small
parcel/part of the land, all other lands have been released and/or the
acquisition with respect to same have been quashed. Considering the
aforesaid facts and circumstances, when the High Court has allowed
the writ petition - CWP No. 16346/2013 and has quashed the acquisition D
proceedings and has directed to release the land in question, it cannot be
said that the learned Single Judge and/or Division Bench of the High
Court has committed any error which caused for interference of this
Court. No interference of this Court is called for. However, at the cost
of repetition, we deprecate the manner in which the State has dealt with
the acquisition proceedings and have released the land(s) and/or permitted E
the acquisition to be quashed in a most arbitrary manner. The lands as
such were acquired for the residential and commercial development
purposes which could not have been utilized and used for public purposes
and development of the area/sector and the State Government by
exercising the powers arbitrarily and/or in favoritism has failed to use F
the lands for public purposes for which the lands were acquired. The
State Government is guardian of the public interest and the public and
the public interest was required to be considered the paramount interest
rather than releasing the lands at initial stage in favour of the influential
persons. The State shall take care in future and must use the lands
acquired for the purpose for which the same have been acquired otherwise G
the object and purpose of acquiring the land will be frustrated.
5.4 Now, so far as the Civil Appeal arising out of CWP No. 10452/
2014 is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that the land in
question is already utilized and used for the sewage lines and
H
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A approximately Rs. 17 crores have been spent in constructing sewage
lines. Therefore, the High Court has committed a very serious error in
quashing and setting aside the acquisition with respect to the said land
which is already put to use for the sewage lines which is being used for
the public purpose and for the residents of the locality. If the judgment
and order passed by the High Court stands in that case, the entire sewage
B
lines will have to be removed which has been constructed after spending
Rs. 17 crores and which is being used for public purpose. The submissions
on behalf of the original writ petitioners is that leaving aside the land
which is already used for the sewage lines, the remaining land be released
cannot be accepted. The part land cannot be released and/or with respect
C to the part land, the acquisition cannot be quashed. It is required to be
noted that in the present case the acquisition has been completed including
acquiring the land, passing the award and payment of compensation and
the land in question is vested in the State Government free from all
encumbrances. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court in CWP No. 10452/2014 is unsustainable
D
and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5.5 Similarly, so far as the Civil Appeal arising out CWP No. 6729/
2013 is concerned, the representation of the original writ petitioners to
release the land from acquisition is rejected on the ground that the land
is required for widening of the road. Having gone through the map, we
E are of the opinion that when the land in question is required by the State
for widening of the road and when the entire acquisition proceedings
have been concluded including declaration of the award, passing of the
award and the payment of the compensation, the acquisition with respect
to the said land which is required for widening of the road ought not to
F have been quashed and/or the same land was not required to be released.
The State was absolutely justified in not releasing the said land which as
such is required for the widening of the road. Under the circumstances,
the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in CWP No.
6729/2013 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
G 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, Civil
Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 11843/2022 arising out of the impugned
judgment and order passed in CWP No. 16346/2013 is hereby dismissed
with the above observations.
7. For the reasons stated above, Civil Appeals, arising out of SLP
H (C) No. 11844/2022 (arising out of CWP No. 10452/2014) and SLP (C)
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. NIRANJAN SINGH & ORS. 29
ETC. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

No. 11842/2022 (arising out of CWP No. 6729/2013) and arising out of A
SLP (C) No. 3980 of 2023, are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment(s)
and order(s) passed by the High Court in CWP Nos. 10452/2014 and
6729/2013 are hereby quashed and set aside. In the facts and
circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
B
Nidhi Jain Appeals disposed of.
(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh and Shashwat Jain, LCRAs)

C

D

E

F

G

H