CB Judgment In Indore Development Authority Case Doesn't Affect Haryana Govt's Power U/s 101A RFCTLARR To Denotify Acquired Lands: Supreme Court

The Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority case will not affect the power of the Government of Haryana under Section 101A of the RFCTLARR  Act, to denotify the land acquired under the old Land Acqusition Act for stated reasons in public interest, the Supreme Court observed.

The bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna observed that denotification can be done only if the State Government is fully satisfied that the land has become unviable or non-essential for the purpose of development and in particular for reason for which it was so acquired. The fact that the land owners have already constructed some structures on the acquired land, which has vested in the State Government, by itself can be no reason to denotify the acquired land, the bench clarified.

In this case, the land owners sought withdrawal of writ petitions filed by them before the High Court seeking declaration of lapsing of acquisition of their lands. As an alternative relief they sought permission to allow them to approach the State of Haryana urging to invoke its power to denotify the acquisition of lands in question under Section 101A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. To refuse this relief, the High Court relied on the Constitution Bench of this Court in the Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129, which had held that after vesting of lands in the State consequent to taking over possession thereof, the land owners cease to have any right over the land in dispute, especially when the acquisition proceedings have been upheld in the same or earlier round of litigation. Therefore, no liberty can be given to such land owners to approach the State of Haryana for denotifying acquisition in respect of their lands after it had vested in the State, the High Court observed.

In appeal, the bench noted that the Constitution bench judgment did not seal with Section 101A of the 2013 Act, as applicable to the State of Haryana.

"Indeed, the Constitution Bench considered the question of lapsing of acquisition proceedings in reference to Section 24 of the 2013 Act. While examining that question, it had also noticed Section 101 of the 2013 Act, which deals with return of unutilised land. In that context, the Constitution Bench had observed that Section 101 of the 2013 Act cannot apply to acquisition made under the 1894 Act. However, it had no occasion to deal with the efficacy of Section 101A of the 2013 Act, as applicable to the State of Haryana.", the Court said.

The court noted that Statement of Objects and Reasons for inserting Section 101A of the 2013 Act by the State Legislature, states that there is also a need to ensure that land is returned back by the State Government as per the due process, in case the land acquired under the old 1894 Act becomes unviable or non-essential.

"Keeping in mind the intent and purport of the State amendment to the principal Act of 2013, the exposition of  the Constitution Bench in reference to the issue of lapsing under Section 24 of the principal Act of 2013, will not affect the regime specified under Section 101A of the 2013 Act, enabling the State Government to denotify the land acquired under the 1894 Act for stated reasons in public interest. Notably, the validity of Section 101A is not the subject matter of challenge before us from any quarter, for the time being. As long as, the provision exists on the Statue Book, it enables the State Government to take appropriate decision in public interest on the factum of the lands in question, having become unviable or nonessential. This power vested in the State is, indeed, coupled with a duty to periodically evaluate the situation or at least soon after it is brought to its notice by the erstwhile land owners or by any publicspirited person that the immovable public property is being wasted, unutilized or has become unviable or nonessential. After receipt of such representation, it would be the bounden duty of the State to examine the relevant facts and form suitable opinion as may be advised, regarding lands having become unviable or nonessential or not. If it is satisfied that the acquired lands have become unviable or non-essential, it is expected of the State, nay the State would be obliged in larger public interest to denotify such land on such terms and conditions as may be necessary. Thus understood, there is no reason to assume that the land owners cannot request the State Government to consider such representation inviting a decision of the State, within the realm of Section 101A of the 2013 Act. This provision is certainly not in the nature of giving a vested right to the land owners regarding denotification of the acquired land nor does it follow that upon denotification, the lands in question must return to the erstwhile owners only. It will be open to the State Government to denotify the acquired land on such terms and conditions as may be expedient, in public interest. Thus, the provision empowers the State to denotify the lands acquired under the 1894 Act", the bench observed while setting aside the High court

Land owners may approach the State Government in reference to Section 101A of the 2013 Act, which representation can be considered by the State Government (State of Haryana) on its own merits; keeping in mind the constricted power given to the State Government to denotify the acquired land if it becomes unviable or non-essential, in public interest and to do so on such terms as may be considered expedient, the bench observed. 

"The fact that the land owners have already constructed some structures on the acquired land, which has vested in the State Government, by itself can be no reason to denotify the acquired land. It can be done only if the State Government is fully satisfied that the land has become unviable or non-essential for the purpose of development and in particular for reason for which it was so acquired.", the Court clarified.

Case: Raghubhir Singh vs. State of Haryana [CA 2714-2715 OF 2021]
Coram: Justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna
Citation: LL 2021 SC 306

Click here to Read/Download Judgment