The Supreme Court rejected the representation of a landlord, which claimed to be in the physical occupation of the land for the release of the said land from the acquisition.
The court directed compensation for the land acquired under the right to fair compensation and transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (Act). The Bhuswamis (appellant) challenged the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in which the appellant's writ petition was rejected, questioning the order passed by the State (defendant), rejecting his representation to issue his land from the acquisition.
A bench of Justice Bra Gawai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra And Justice KV Vishwanathan Said “Since the appellant claims to be in the constant physical occupation of the land in which a factory is in operation and the department has not satisfied this aspect of the case satisfactorily, on the special facts of the case, in the practice of our power under Article 142, we direct that the compensation payable to the appellant for the appropriate compensation and transpirations.,
Senior advocate Nidhesh Gupta Representing the appellant, while Asag km natraj She appeared for the respondents.
Brief fact
The appellant bought land in 1986, which was later included in the notification for land acquisition by the State of Haryana in 1992. The acquisition was for the development and use of residential and commercial areas along with sector roads in Sonipat. The initial writ petitions of the appellant challenging the acquisition were rejected or withdrawn. His last petition, demanding the release of land, was rejected by the state in 2010 and later rejected by the High Court.
The appellant argued that the state had issued an equally located land, but not his, claiming discrimination. He also said that his factory should have been preserved under the state policies since 1970. The state said that the appellant's case was not eligible for release as it did not have a valid change of land use (CLU) certificate.
Court argument
The Supreme Court claimed to be in the constant occupation of the land with a factory in the appellant's operation, keeping in mind the state's arguments about the absence of a valid Clu to run the factory.
,Regarding other issued land, it is mentioned in its counter affidavit/written presentations by the defendant/state that they are not part of the same notification. Thus, it is clear that the appellant's case stands on a separate legs because the appellant has not obtained a valid Clu. Thus, the appellant's discrimination petition is responsible for rejecting,“The bench commented.
The court said, “In its additional affidavit, the defendant/state of Haryana has clearly stated that the concerned department of the state government has already received a huge amount due to the development of areas falling under the notification and total expenses. 2661.88 lakh sector has been for construction of roads, water supply networks, sewerage and storewater drainage systems … Thus, the release of the subject land will affect the entire plan of land received under the notification.,
As a result, the court said “We are not willing to accept the prayer's prayer to issue land on the basis of discrimination.,
Accordingly, the Supreme Court settled the appeal.
Reason Title: Kishore Chhabra vs. Haryana and ORS states. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 419)
appearance:
Appealing: Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta; AOR G. Balaji; Advocates Pallavi Singh, Japneet Kaur, Manu Bhardwaj and Bikram Dwivedi
Respondents: ASG KM Nataraja; Egg BK Satija; AOR Summer Vijay Singh and Sushil Balwara; Advocates Sabrani Som, Fateh Singh, Aman Dev Sharma, Amit Ojha and Keshav Mittal
Click here to read/download the decision
