Case Note & Summary
Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) – Article 142 – Supreme Court exercised its discretionary power to grant compensation under the 2013 Act considering the peculiar facts, despite rejecting the appellant’s claim for release of land. [Para 13] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LAA) – Sections 4, 5-A, 6, 9, 48(1) – Notification under Section 4 issued in 1992 for acquisition of land for residential and commercial purposes – Objections under Section 5-A not filed by the appellant – Award passed in 1995 – Land possession deemed to have been taken. [Paras 2.1, 6]
a. State’s policy dated 26.06.1991 and 26.10.2007 provided for release of land with existing factories before notification – Appellant failed to establish a valid Change of Land Use (CLU). [Paras 5, 7]
b. Land of similarly placed owners released; appellant claimed discrimination – State proved distinguishing factors, including absence of CLU and impact on green belt. [Paras 9, 10]
c. Huge expenditure already incurred on sector roads, water supply, sewerage, and public utilities – Release of land would disturb planned development. [Para 11]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Res Judicata – Earlier writ petitions either did not seek release of land or were withdrawn – Present petition not barred by res judicata but dismissed on merits. [Para 12]
Ratio Decidendi:
Mere possession of land does not create a right for release once acquisition is complete.
Absence of valid CLU disentitles appellant from relief under the State’s land release policy.
Compensation granted under the 2013 Act as an equitable measure under Article 142, considering prolonged possession.
Subjects: Land Acquisition – Compensation – Discrimination – Change of Land Use – State Policies – Planned Development – Article 142 – Res Judicata – Land Release Policy – Sector Planning – Supreme Court
Issue of Consideration
KISHORE CHHABRA VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
