9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include the validity of the notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, denial of opportunity of personal hearing under section 5A of the Act, exclusion of land with structures from acquisition, and the arbitrariness and discrimination in the decision-making process of the State Government regarding the exclusion of properties from acquisition. Validity of Notification under Section 4: The State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act expressing its intention to acquire land for development purposes. The appellants, claiming to be owners/occupiers of the land, filed objections under section 5A of the Act, challenging the validity of the notification on various grounds. The Land Acquisition Collector recommended exclusion of lands with structures, but the State Government decided to acquire the land with structures, leading to notifications under sections 6 and 9 of the Act. The High Court rejected some contentions but allowed two writ petitions, emphasizing that there is no bar for acquiring land with structures. Exclusion of Land with Structures: The main argument by the appellants was the alleged arbitrary and discriminatory decision of the State Government in not excluding their properties from acquisition while accepting similar requests from other landowners with structures. The State contended that the appellants' constructions were of lower quality compared to those excluded, but this argument was refuted as lacking uniform application. The classification of structures as A, B, or C class was questioned for its rational basis and intelligible differentia, especially considering the purpose of planned development for residential and commercial use. Arbitrariness and Discrimination: The Supreme Court found the State Government's rejection of the appellants' request for exclusion of their land with structures to be arbitrary and discriminatory. The Court criticized the lack of fair and reasonable consideration by the Government, highlighting the absence of a clear basis for the classification of structures and the failure to provide architectural plans to support the decision. Consequently, the Court set aside the judgments, quashed the orders rejecting the appellants' representations, and directed the State to reconsider the objections for exclusion of lands with structures, ensuring a fair hearing and excluding only land necessary for specific purposes like roads or hospitals. This judgment emphasizes the importance of fair and non-discriminatory decision-making in land acquisition processes, particularly regarding the exclusion of properties with existing structures based on rational and transparent criteria.
|
