Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

Supreme Court Quashes Land Release Orders, Highlights Arbitrary Exercise of Power in Land Acquisition

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Intro: In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has quashed the release orders of acquired land, emphasizing the arbitrary exercise of power by the State of Haryana. The Court's decision came in response to multiple civil appeals arising from writ petitions challenging the acquisition. The bench, comprising Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, highlighted the need for the State to consider future development and public interest when acquiring land for residential and commercial purposes. The judgment raises concerns over arbitrary land releases and emphasizes the State's duty to utilize acquired lands for intended purposes.

The Court observed, "The State shall take care in the future and must use the lands acquired for the purpose for which they were acquired, otherwise the object and purpose of acquiring the land will be frustrated." It criticized the State's arbitrary release of lands in favor of influential individuals and highlighted the importance of public interest over individual interests.

The case involved the acquisition of land measuring 46.49 acres in Sector 11, Kurukshetra, by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. The State had released a major chunk of the acquired land in previous cases, leaving only small plots under acquisition. The Court emphasized that while some lands were released, the State failed to utilize the acquired land for the intended residential and commercial development.

Notably, the judgment addressed specific cases where the State refused to release the acquired land. In one case, where the land was already utilized for sewage lines with an investment of approximately Rs. 17 crores, the Court upheld the State's decision not to release the land, highlighting the potential adverse consequences if the release were allowed. Similarly, in another case where the land was required for road widening, the Court held that the State's decision to retain the land for public infrastructure purposes was justified.

The Supreme Court's decision dismissed one appeal while allowing the others. It upheld the High Court's order to release the land in question from acquisition in one case. However, it quashed the release orders in the remaining cases, emphasizing the importance of public interest and the State's responsibility as the guardian of public welfare.

Date of Decision: February 24, 2023

State of Haryana & Ors.   VS Niranjan Singh & Ors. Etc

Latest Legal News