RAMESHWAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present judgment will dispose of various applications filed by the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (hereinafter, "HSIIDC") and others, by way of clarifications sought on the judgment delivered by this Court in Rameshwar v. State of Haryana and Ors., (2018) 6 SCC 215 (hereinafter, "main judgment").

(2.) The main judgment of this Court had, after duly considering the sequence of facts and developments which occurred after publication of the notification under Sec. 4 of the (now repealed) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, "Acquisition Act") on 27/8/2004, read with the final decision of the State of Haryana (hereinafter, "State") dtd. 29/1/2010 to not proceed with the said acquisition, declared as mala fide and inoperative the decision dtd. 29/1/2010. The Court's reasoning was that the State, in principle, had decided to withdraw from the acquisition after the notification under Sec. 4, which was followed by the declaration under Sec. 6 and the receipt of objections from the concerned lands owners etc., even when the matter was posted for publication of the award on 26/8/2007. In the interim period, land owners, alarmed by the prospect of losing their holdings, were induced to sell or otherwise transfer their lands to colonizers / developers at significantly lower rates of compensation. Most of such colonizers / developers had entered into collaboration agreements after the notification under Sec. 4, sought (and were granted) licenses by the Department of Town and Country Planning of the State of Haryana (hereinafter, "DTCP"). This Court found that upon an overall consideration of the materials (which included relevant official notings in government files, ministerial decisions and notifications), the state machinery was used to further private ends. The Court held that such a decision to withdraw from acquisition was a fraud on power under the Acquisition Act. Therefore, the judgment invalidated all transfers effected from the date of publication of the notification under Sec. 4, to the date of publication of the State's decision to revoke the acquisition i.e., from 27/8/2004 to 29/1/2010 (hereinafter, "suspect period").

(3.) Apart from invalidating the State's final decision, the judgment also contained consequential directions on various aspects. Before moving further, it would be useful to extract these directions: