MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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