Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
APPELLANT
VERSUS
SANT SINGH & ORS.
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 5073-5077
OF 2016
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (Civil) NOS.5630-5634 OF 2014)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 5079-5085
OF 2016
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (Civil) NOS.5641-5647 OF 2014)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
5086
OF 2016
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (Civil) N.5656 OF 2014)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
5100
OF 2016
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (Civil) NO.25843 OF 2014)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 5087-5099
OF 2016
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (Civil) NO.19931-19943 OF 2014)
Page1
JUDGMENT
ANIL R. DAVE, J.
1.
Authority
under
the
Haryana
Urban
is
Builder-cum-Developer
entered
into
4.
5.
It was concluded :[69]. From the facts noticed above, there can be no
different conclusion but to infer that though the
proposal to acquire land for the development of
Urban Sectors at Rohtak was mooted, approved and
was taken to a logical conclusion for a bona-fide
public purpose. However, during the interregnum
and before passing the Award, an unholy nexus to
promote the private interest of respondent No. 11
sprouted which de-railed the public purpose of
acquisition and led to the misuse of power under
Section 48 of the 1894 Act. Respondent No. 11
exploited the moments of suspense and succeeded
6
Page6
6.
covered
by acquisition
order was passed :[94]. In the light of the discussion and for the
reasons stated above, we allow these writ petitions
in the following terms:-
1
Page15
9.
State
of
Haryana
versus
Sindhu
Education
order
also.
The
said
petition
has
been
was clarified that stay could not mean that any further
development could be effected on the property.
However,
some land owners who were not party before the High Court
to support the impugned judgment.
counsel for the builder, S/Shri Harish N. Salve and Dr. Rajeev
Dhawan, learned senior counsel, apart from other counsel,
also appearing for the builder or the purchasers and Shri K.K.
Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the land owners and
other counsel for the land owners.
learned counsel for the State.
The builder
cost,
licence/scrutiny
fee/conversion
charges,
crores
from
third
parties
towards
sale
Bona
Shri Salve
In absence of
The
Learned
counsel for the State submitted that the object of the policy
to permit colonization by a private builder is to prevent
haphazard constructions.
12.
Thus, creating a
Relief could be
What
(2010) 7 SCC 1;
(2012) 3 SCC 1
2
Page25
Reliance
on
Policy
dated
6th
March,
2000
is
(emphasis
added)
17.
(2012) 10 SCC 1
(2014) 9 SCC 516
2
Page26
explained.
19.
be
no
estoppel
on
the
ground
that
2
Page28
depriving a tenure holder not only of his property but also his
profession, livelihood and social security 10.
Even plight of
It
the
scheme
of
the
1894
Act,
the
land
losers
get
2
Page29
(1995) 2 SCC 528, [Gyan Chand v. Gopala & Ors.]; (1995) 5 SCC 335 [Mahavir & Anr. v.
Rural Institute, Amravati & Anr.]; (1996) 3 SCC 124 [The U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow Thr. its
Chairman & Anr. v. M/s. Kalra Properties Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow & Ors.]; (2008) 9 SCC 177 [Meera
Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi] and (2014) 15 SCC 394, pr. 14-15; (2012) 12 SCC 133 pr.18
15
(2007) 9 SCC 304
14
3
Page30
23.
The
16
3
Page31
3
Page32
ibid, pr 11
3
Page33
completion
of
acquisition.
If
after
initiation
of
happened.
27.
19
which
has
been
brought
about,
though
in
normal
HUDA
may
forthwith
take
possession thereof.
(ii)
19
3
Page35
iii)
land
covered
by
acquisition
will
stand
transferred to HUDA.
iv)
to
hereinafter.
reimbursement
as
indicated
3
Page36
vi)
The
builder
will
be
entitled
to
refund/
amount.
viii) The State shall give benefit of Rehabilitation and
Resettlement of Land Acquisition Oustees policy
3
Page37
for
illegally
entertaining
the
xi)
30.
..J.
[ ANIL R. DAVE ]
..J.
[ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]
NEW DELHI;
MAY 13, 2016.
3
Page39