REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7287  OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23164 of 2004)

Dharam Pal  …… Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana and Ors.       ……Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of

the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition questioning

legality of the Notification dated 24.8.2000 issued under Section 4 of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the ‘Act’) as also the declaration under

Section 6 of the Act dated 22.8.2001.  The only ground which was pressed

into  service  during  arguments  was  that  the  construction  made  by  the

appellant  has  been  acquired  whereas  similar  kind  of  constructions  made

with regard to others similarly situated  persons have been left  out.  The

High Court did not find any substance in the plea and dismissed it.  

3. During  the  course  of  hearing,  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant

placed strong reliance on the judgment of this Court in  Jagdish Chand &

Anr. v.  State  of  Haryana  and  Anr.  (2005  (10)  SCC 162).  This  Court  in

Jagdish Chand’s case  (supra)  relied  on earlier  judgment  of  this  Court  in

Sube Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.  (2001 (7) SCC 545).

4. Though,  no  one  appeared  for  the  respondent-State  and  its

functionaries in spite of service of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed.

In Jagdish Chand’s case (supra) it was observed as follows:

“6. This  Court  in  a  similar  situation,  though  on  a  different ground, dealing with the structures of three different  classes, found that there was no justification to exclude the structures of Class ‘A’ only and not to exclude structures of Classes ‘B’ and

2

‘C’. In that background, and on the facts of those cases, gave the  directions  as  contained  in  paragraph  12  of  the aforementioned case1 which reads: (SCC p. 549)

“12.  In  the  result,  the  appeals  are  allowed.  The judgments under challenge are set aside, the orders passed  by  the  State  Government  rejecting  the representation of the appellants are quashed. The Secretary,  Urban  Estates  Department,  State  of Haryana,  Respondent  1  herein,  is  directed  to consider  the  objection  petitions  filed  by  the appellants  for  exclusion  of  their  properties  from acquisition  and  pass  appropriate  order  excluding such  lands  having  structures  on  them excepting any land which is  required  for construction  of  a road  or  hospital.  Respondent  1  shall  give opportunity  of  hearing  to  the  appellants  before taking  the  decision.  The  exercise  shall  be completed  expeditiously  if  possible  within  three months.  There  will,  however,  be  no  order  as  to costs.”

5. In view of what has been stated in  Jagdish Chand’s case and  Sube

Singh’s case (supra), we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court

and dispose of the appeal on the following terms:

(1)  The Secretary, Urban Estates Department, State of Haryana is directed

to  consider  the  objections  of  the  appellant  only  so  far  as  it  relates  to

exclusion of the land to the extent occupied by the structure and appropriate

open area around the structure for the beneficial enjoyment of the appellant.

3

However,  this  direction  shall  not  come in  the  way of  the  authorities  in

removing the structures, if required for the purposes of road, hospital and

other civic amenities.

(2) The Secretary, Urban Estates  Department  shall  decide not  only the

existence of the structures prior to Section 4(1) notification or subsequent

to, he shall also decide the extent of structure which existed prior to Section

4(1) notification.

(3) It is also open to the authorities to make adjustment or readjustment

of  plots  for  the purpose  of  planned development  and in  case it  becomes

necessary, to give a little additional area from the plots to the appellant. The

appellant shall be bound to take that additional area and also be bound to

pay the cost of such area as is chargeable to other allottees. The appellant

shall  also be bound to pay the developmental charges as is charged from

other allottees. It is open to the parties to place documents or material  in

support of their contentions.

6. We expect that as far as possible, the respondents shall try to retain

the  structures,  unless  it  becomes  difficult  for  them  to  have  a  planned

development without removing them in view of what is stated above.

4

7. The  above  directions  will  be  applicable  only  to  such  of  the  cases

where the residential structures are made prior to the issuance of Section 4

(1) notification and the appellant is actually residing there. However, in case

of any dispute as to whether the structures were made prior to Section 4(1)

notification  or  later,  the  Secretary,  Urban  Estates  Department  shall

determine  that  question  after  affording  opportunities  to  both  the  parties,

uninfluenced  by observations  made in  the  impugned  orders  of  the  High

Court.

8. We make it clear that these directions are given on the peculiar facts

of these cases and are not intended for any general application.

9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

……..………..........................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……..……..............................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi, December 15, 2008

5