[2013] 5 S.C.R.

645

MIS. USHA STUD AND AGRICULTURAL FARMS A

PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 2557 of 2013}
B
APRIL 02, 2013
[G.S. SINGHVI, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND
KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 5-A and 6(1) - Violation C

of - Discrimination in release of acquired land - Lands owned
by appellants and five similarly situated others acquired for
one and the same purpose - State Government I HUDA
released acquired lands of five others, by executing
agreements with them, but did not accord similar treatment ·D
to appellants - Justification - Held: Not justified - Appellants
were subjected to hostile discrimination - The solitary reason
put forward by the respondents for not releasing the appellants'
land, namely, that most of it was lying vacant was ex-facie
erroneous, which is clear from the notings recorded by the E
officers and the Special Secretary to the Chief Minister of the
State on th.e objections filed by the appellants - While
ordering the issue of notification u/s.6(1), the Chief Minister
did not even advert to the objections filed by the appeliants
and the report made by the Land Acquisition Collector u/s.5- F
A(2) - Direction given by the Chief Minister for issue of
notification u/s. 6(1) without considering the objections· of the
appellants and other relevant factors was vitiated due to non-
app/ication of mind - Decision taken at the level of the Chief
Minister not in consonance with the scheme of s.5-A(2) rlw G
s. 6(1) - The State Government's refusal to release the
appellants' land resulted in violation of their right to equality
granted u/Article 14 of the Constitution - Constitution of India,
1950 - Art. 14.
645 H
 646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R.

A Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.5-A(2) - Purpose and

effect of - Opportunity to the objector - Obligation of the
Collector - Rule of audi alteram partem.

The appellants challenged the acquisition of their

8 land in Writ Petition which was dismissed by the High
Court along with other similar petitions. The appellants
and the others similarly situated then filed Special Leave
'petition. During the pendency of the SLPs, the State
Government released the land belonging to the other
C similarly situated petitioners.

Subsequently, the Chief Town Planner submitted a

note for release of the ap·pellants' land subject to the
condition that they should withdraw the SLP. The
appellants did the needful, whereafter an agreement was
D executed between the appellants and Haryana Urban
Development Authority (HUDA) for release of land.
However, before the all terms of the said agreement could
be acted upon, the State Government issued fresh
notification dated 7 .12.1988 under Section 4(1) of the
E Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the acquisition of land
including the land owned by the appellants. They filed
detailed objections dated 4.1.1989. The Land.Acquisition
Collector as also the Chief Town and Country Planner
made recommendation that the land of the appellants may
F not be notified because the same had already been
released from acquisition. However, the State
Government did not accept their recommendations and
Issued a declaration under Section 6(1 ), which was
published in the Official Gazette dated 6.12.1989.
G The appellants challenged notifications dated
7 .12.1988 and 6.12.1989 in Writ Petition. During the
pendency of those petitions, the Land Acquisition
Collector passed award, which was followed by a
supplementary award. Thereupon, the appellants filed
H another Writ Petition and prayed for quashing of the
USHA STUD AND AGRICULTURAL FARMS PRIVATE 647
LIMITED v. STATE OF HARYANA

awards. Meanwhile a substantial portion of the lands A

belonging to the similarly situated others had been
released by the State Government I HUDA.
In the writ petitions filed by them, the appellants
highlighted the discrimination practiced against them and B
pleaded that even though the Land Acquisition Officer
and the Chief Town Planner had recommended the
release of their land, the State Government arbitrarily
issued the declaration under Section 6(1) by wrongly
assuming that the entire land was lying vacant. The C
Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ
petitions, and therefore the instant appeal.
The question which arose for consideration of this
Court was whether the ac<fulsition of the appellants' land
was vitiated due to violation of Sections 5-A and 6(1) of D
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and whether the State
Government resorted to discrimination in the matter of
release of the acquired land.
Allowing the appeals, the Court E
HELD:1.1. The lands owned by the appellants and
five others were acquired for one and the same purpose.
Therefore, once the State Government took a conscious
decision to release the lands of the five others, albeit by
executing agreements with them, there could be no F,
justification whatsoever for not according similar·
treatment to the appellants. The solitary reason put
forward by the respondents for not releasing the
appellants' land, namely, that most of it was lying vacant
was ex-facie erroneous, which is clear from the notings G
recorded by the officers and the Special Secretary to the
Chief Minister of the State on the objections filed by the
appellants. [Paras 17, 18] [657-H; 658-A-B; 661-D]

1.2. It is intriguing that while ordering the issue of H

 648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 5 S.C.R.

A notification under Section 6(1), the Chief Minister did not

even advert to the objections filed by the appellants and
the report made by the Land Acquisition Collector under
Section 5-A{2). He was totally oblivious of the fact that the
appellants had already utilised substantial portion of their
B land for establishing Stud Farm and for other activities,
like, animal husbandry, agriculture, horticulture, nursery
and dairy farming and had also constructed a large
number of buildings by spending crores of rupees and
planted 5,000 trees. Be that as it may, the direction given
c by the Chief Minister for the issue of notification under
Section 6(1) without considering the objections of the
appellants and other relevant factors must be held as
vitiated due to non application of mind. [Paras 18] [661-
D-G]
D 1.3. Not only the Chief Minister, but the High Court
also overlooked the fact that after the Chief Minister had
ordered acquisition of vacant land belonging to the
similarly situated others and notification was issued, the
State Government and/or HUDA executed agreement with
E them and released the acquired land leaving out the
appellants' land and in this manner they were subjected
to hostile discrimination. [Para 19] [661-G-H; 662-A]

2. The declaration issued by the State Government

F was vitiated due to violation of Section 5-A (2) read with
Section 6(1 ). Section 5-A{2) of the Land Acquisition Act,
0

1894, which represents statutory embodiment of the rule

of audi alteram partem, gives an opportunity to the
objector to make an endeavour to convince the Collector
that his land is not required for the public purpose
G specified in the notification issued under Section 4(1) or
that there are other valid reasons for not acquiring the
same. That section also makes it obligatory for the
Collector to submit report{s) to the appropriate
Government containing his recommendations on the
H objections, together with the record of the proceedings

'
USHA STUD AND AGRICULTURAL FARMS PRIVATE 649
LIMITED v. STATE OF HARYANA
held by him so that the Government may take appropriate A
decision on the objections. Section 6(1) provides that if
the appropriate Government is satisfied, after
considering the report, if any, made by the Collector
under Section 5-A(2) that particular land is needed for the
specified public purpose then a declaration should be B
made. This .necessarily implies that the State
Government is required to apply mind to the report of the
Collector and take final decision on the objections filed
by the landowners and other interested persons. Then
and then only, a declaration can be made under Section c
6(1). The decision taken at the level of the Chief Minister
was not in consonance with the scheme of Section 5-A(2)
read with Section 6(1). Further, the State Government's
refusal to release the appellants' land resulted in violation
of their right to equality granted under Article 14 of the
0
Constitution. [Paras 20, 33 and 34] [662-B; 672-G-H; 673-
A-E]
Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana (2012) 1
SCC 792: 2011 (14) SCR 1113; Kamal Trading (P) Ltd. v.
State of West Bengal (2012) 2 SCC 25: 2011 (13) SCR 529; E
Munshi Singh v. Union of India (1973) 2 SCC 337: 1973 (1)
SCR 973; State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (1980) 2 SCC
471: 1980 (1) SCR 1071; Shyam Nandan Prasad v. State
of Bihar(1993) 4 SCC 255: 1993 (1) Suppl. SCR 533; Union
of India v. Mukesh Hans (2004) 8 SCC 14; Hindustan F
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai (2005)
7 SCC 627: 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 388 and Radhy Shyam
v. State of U.P. "(2011) 5 sec 553: 2011 (8) SCR 359 -
relied on.

3. The impugned order is set aside and the G

declaration issued by the State Government under
Section 6(1) is quashed. However, this judgment shall
not preclude the State Government from taking fresh
decision after objectively considering the objections filed
by the appellants under Section 5-A(1). If the final H
 650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R.

A decision of the State Government is adverse to the

appellants, then they shall be free to challenge the same
before an appropriate judicial forum and urge all legally
permissible contentions in support of their cause. [Paras
35, 36] [673-E-G]
B
Case Law Reference:
2011 (14) SCR 1113 relied on Para 15, 31
2011 (13) SCR 529 relied on Paras 15, 32
c 1973 (1) SCR 973 relied on Para 28, 31
1980 (1) SCR 1071 relied on Para 29, 31
1993 (1) Suppl. SCR 533relied on Para 30, 31

D
(2004) 8 sec 14 relied on Para 31
2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 388 relied on Para 31
2011 (8) SCR 359 relied on · Para 31
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
E 2557 of 2013.

From the Judgment & Order dated 27.01.2012 of the High

Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 3822
of 1991. ·
F
WITH

C.A. Nos. 2576. 2577, 2578, 2580, 2582, 2583, 2584 of 2013.

Soli J. Sorabjee, Pallav Shishodia, Arvind Kr. Sharma,

G Ritika Goyal, Mehernal Mehta, Saurabh Mishra for the
Appellant.

Neeraj Kr. Jain, Anubha Agrawal for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H
USHA STUD AND AGRICULTURAL FARMS PRIVATE 651
LIMITED v. STATE OF HARYANA
G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Whether the acquisitjon of the A
appellants' land is vitiated due to violation of Sections 5-A and
6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') and
whether the State Government resorted to discrimination in the
matter of release of the acquired land are the questions which
arise for consideration in these appeals filed against order B
dated 27 .1.2012 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High
Court.

2. By notification dated 13.11.1981 issued under Section

4(1), the State Government proposed the acquisition of
1005.30 acres land of three villages, namely, Mullahera, C
Dundahera and Daulatpur Nasirabad (Carterpur) for the
development of Sectors 21, 22, 23 and 23A of Gurgaon. The
appellants, whose land measuring 52.74 acres situated in
village Daulatpur Nasirabad (Carterpur) was included in the
notification, filed objections under Section 5-A(1). The Land D
Acquisition Collector submitted report under Section 5-A(2) and
recommended the acquisition of 702.37 acres land. As regards
the appellants' land, the Land Acquisition Collector opined that
Stud Farm cannot be allowed to remain in the residential zone
and, therefore, the entire land may be acquired except the E
portion on which residential building had been constructed. The
State Government accepted the recommendations of the Land
Acquisition Collector and issued five separate declarations
under Section 6(1 ). For 91.98 acres land of village Daulatpur
Nasirabad (Carterpur), the declaration was published in the F
Official Gazette dated 15.11.1984. -

3. The appellants challenged the acqui~tion of their land

in Writ Petition No.5623/1984 which was dismissed by the
High Court along with other similar petitions.
G
4. The appellants then filed Special Leave Petition (C)
No.2302/1986. During the pendency of the matter before this
Court, the State Government released the land belonging to
M/s. Jawala Textiles _Ltd., M/s. Rani Shaver Poultry Farm Ltd.,
H
 652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R.

A Mis. Enfilco ~td., M/s. lndo Swiss Time Limited and M/s. Omega
Commercial (Pvt.) Ltd.

5. On 13.7.1986, the. Chief Town Planner, Haryana

submitted a note for release of the appellants' land subject to
B the condition that they should withdraw the Special Leave
Petition. The appellants did the needful. Thereafter, the
Cornmissioner and Secretary, Town and Country Planning
Department sent communication dated 21.8.1986 to the
appellants incorporating therein the terms on which the land
C was released. As a sequel to this, agreement dated 8.6.1987
was executed between the appellants and Haryana Urban
Development Authority (HUDA) for release of 47.74 acres land.

6. In furtherance of the agreement, the appellants

deposited Rs.1,00,000/- which, according to them, were
D towards the first instalment of the development charges.
However, before the other terms of agreement could be acted
upon, the State Government issued fresh notification dated
7.12.1988 under Section 4(1) for the acquisition of 55.10 acres
land including the land owned by the appellants. They filed
E detailed objections dated 4.1.1989, the salient features of which
were:

(i) they had established Stud Farm on the acquired

land by spending substantial amount for breeding,
rearing and exporting horses and were doing other
F activities like animal husbandry, agriculture,
horticulture, nursery and dairy farming;

(ii) they had grown 5,000 trees on the land and also
constructed 'A' class buildings worth several crores
G of rupees;

(iii) the purpose of acquisition was vague;

(iv) the notification issued under Section 4(1) was not

published in two newspapers and was not affixed
H in the vicinity of the acquired land, and
USHA STUD AND AGRICULTURAL FARMS PRIVATE 653
LIMITED v. STATE OF HARYANA [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
(v) the decision of the State Government to acquire A
their land was discriminatory and violative of Article
14 of the Constitution.
7. Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Gurgaon
submitted report dated 17.11.1989 with the recommendation 8
that the land of the appellants may not be notified because the
same had already been released from acquisition. Similar
recommendation was made by the Chief Town and Country
Planner. However, the State Government did not accept their
recommendations and issued a declaration under Section 6(1), C
which was published in the Official Gazette dated 6.12.1989.

8. The appellants challenged notifications dated 7.12.1988

and 6.12.1989 in Writ Petition Nos. 3820-3823/1991. During
the pendency of those petitions, the Land Acquisition Collector
passed award dated 5.12.1991, which was followed by D
supplementary award dated 25.8.1993. Thereupon, the
appellants filed Writ Petition Nos. 1152-1155/1994 and prayed
for quashing of the awards.
'
9. While the writ petitions filed by them were pending, the E
appellants made an application to the competent authority for
permission to use the acquired land for group housing. The
Additional Director, Urban Estates recommended the release
of 37.906 acres land in favour of the appellants but no final
decision was taken in the matter apparently because the writ F
petitions filed by them were pending.

10. M/s. Rani Shaver Poultry Farm Ltd., M/s. lndo Swiss
Time Ltd., and M/s. Kanodia Petro Products Ltd., successor
of M/s. Jawala Textile Mills, Vfhose lands were acquired in 1981
but were released by the State Government and were re- G
acquired vide notification dated 11.9.1990 filed Writ Petition
Nos. 11679/1993, 10456/1993 and 3942/1992 for quashing
the same. After receiving the notices issued by the High Court,
the State Government/HUDA executed separate agreements
with them and released substantial portion of their land. As a H
 654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R.

A sequel to t.his, the writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn.

However, the writ petition filed by M/s. Enfilco Ltd. was
· dismissed by the High Court. When the matter was carried to
this Court (Civil Appeal No.4359/1994) an agreement was
executed between HUDA and M/s. Enfilco Ltd. and major
B portion of its land was released.

11. In the writ petitions filed by them, the appellants

highlighted the discrimination practiced against them. They
pleaded that the Stud Farm established by them is covered by
C the term 'agriculture' defined in Section 2(1) of the Punjab
Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of
Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 (for short, 'the 1963 Act')
and they had raised constructions in consonance with the
provisions of that Act. The appellants further pleaded that even
though the Land Acquisition Officer and the Chief Town Planner
D had recommended the release of their land, the State
Government arbitrarily issued the declaration under Section
6(1) by wrongly assuming that the entire land was lying vacant.

12. In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the

E respondents, it was averred that the objections filed by the
appellants were duly considered and final decision to acquire
their land was taken by the highest political functionary of the
State, i.e., the Chief Minister. It was further averred that the
construction made by the appellants was contrary to the
F provisions of the 1963 Act because they had not obtained
permission from the competent authority. The respondents also
pleaded that rearing and breeding of horses is a commercial
activity, which could not have been undertaken by the appellants
without obtaining sanction from the competent authority for
G change of land use.
13. The Division Bench of the High Court rejected the
contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and dismissed
the writ petitions. While dealing with the question whether the
acquisition of the appellants' land was vitiated due to violation
H of Section 5-A(2), the Division Bench observed as under:
USHA STUD AND AGRICULTURAL FARMS PRIVATE 655
LIMITED v. STATE OF HARYANA [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
"As regards the contention of the counsel for the petitioners A
that since the Land Acquisition Collector has not made any
recommendation in his report while considering the
objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5-A of the
Act, the same only requires to be noted and rejected for
the simple reason that the Collector is not the competent B
authority to decide the objections under Section 5-A of the
Act raised by the land owners against the acquisition. He
is required to submit his report as it existed on the spot
as he is required to enquire into the objections, record the
statements of the parties, inspect the sites and send his c
report to the State Government. Along with his report he
may make recommendation or may not do so because it
has no bearing as the competent authority to take decision
on the objections is the State Government. Thus, for the
failure to make any recommendation by the Collector, D
acquisition proceedings cannot be quashed on the ground
that it violates the procedure or deny the rights conferred
on the land owners under Section 5-A of the Act."

14. The Division Bench of the High Court also negatived

the appellants' plea of discrimination in the following words: E

"A ground of discrimination has been raised by the

petitioners alleging that in an earlier acquisition in the year
1981, petitioners and other similarly placed Companies,
namely, M/s Rani Shaver Poultry Farm, M/s Omega F
Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Anand Purifier (now Mis Enfilco
Ltd.), lndo Swiss Time Ltd., M/s Jawala Textile Mills, had
challenged the said acquisition by filing independent writ
. petitions. These writ petitions were dismissed and during
the pendency of the Special Leave Petitions before the G
Supreme Court, an agreement was entered into and the
land of the petitioners as also these Companies were
released from acquisition. Thereafter, while notification for
acquisition of the land of the petitioners was issued, land
of other companies was not re-acquired. This objection
H
 656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 5 S.C.R.

A was raised under Section 5-A of the Act, which led to the
issuance of the notifications for acquiring the land of other
companies also. As the petitioners challenged, similarly·
• other companies also challenged the notifications. During
the pendency of the writ petitions, agreements were
B entered into between these companies and respondents
and on the basis of these agreements, writ petitions were
withdrawn by these companies as their lands stood
released from acquisition except that in the case of Mis
Enfilco. This contention of the petitioners can also not be
c accepted as it is not in dispute that the acquisition, through
which the lands of these companies were acquired, was
different from the notifications issued for acquisition of the
land of the petitioners. The judgments relied upon by the
counsel for the petitioners in the case of Hari Ram and
another (supra), Mis Aggarwal Paper Board and Allied
D
Industries (supra), Chandu Singh (supra) and Anil Kakkar
(supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present
case for the reason that in those cases, the land, which
was being acquired and discrimination qua which was
raised by the land owners, was the same whereas the
E notifications for acquisition are different in the present
case."

15. Shri Soli Sorabjee and Shri Pallav Shishodia, learned

senior counsel appearing for the appellants, argued that the
F impugned order is liable to be set aside because the finding
recorded by the High Court on the issue of discrimination is
ex-facie erroneous. Learned senior counsel emphasized that
the lands belonging to t.he appellants and those of Mis. Rani
Shaver Poultry Farm Ltd. and others were acquired for
G developing different sectors of Gurgaon and, therefore, the
State Government was not at all justified in adopting different
yardsticks in the matter of release of the acquired land. Shri
Sorabjee submitted that if the lands of Mis. Rani Shaver Poultry
Farm Ltd. and others were released on the ground that the
H same had already been utilised for establishing industrial units,
 ( .
USHA STUD AND AGRICULTURAL FARMS PRIVATE 657
LIMITED v. STATE OF HARYANA [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
the same treatment should have been accorded to the A
appellants because they had not only established Stud Farm
for rearing and breeding of horses but also started agricultural,
horticulture, animal husbandry, nursery and dairy farming and
planted 5,000 trees. Learned senior counsel criticized the view
expressed by the High Court on the issue of compliance of B
Section 5-A and argued that the same is contrary to the law
laid down by this Court in Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of
Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 792 and Kamal Trading (P) Ltd. v.
State of West Bengal (2012) 2 SCC 25.

16. Shri Neeraj Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for

c
the respondents, supported the impugned order and argued
that the High Court did not commit any error by dismissing the
writ petitions. Shri Jain submitted that the appellants cannot
seek invalidation of the acquisition proceedings on the ground
of violation of Section 5-A because final decision to acquire D
the land was taken by none other than the Chief Minister. He
submitted that the role of the Land Acquisition Collector ended
with the making of recommendations and it was for the State
Government to decide whether or not the particular piece of land
should be acquired for the specified public purpose. Shri Jain E
further argued that the State Government cannot be accused
of practicing discrimination because while the lands belonging
to Mis. Rani Shaver Poultry Farm Ltd. and others had already
been used for industrial, commercial and other purposes, those
owned by the appellants were lying vacant. F

17. We have considered the respective arguments. We

shall first consider whether the reason recorded by the High
Court for rejecting the appellants' plea of discrimination is legally
correct. It is not in dispute that the lands owned by the appellants G
and Mis. Rani Shaver Poultry Farm Ltd. and four others were
acquired for one and the same purpose i.e. the development
of Sectors 21, 22, 23 and 23A of Gurgaon. Therefore, once the
State Government took a conscious decision to release the
lands of M/s. Rani Shaver Poultry Farm Ltd. and four others,
H
 658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R.

A albeit by executing agreements with them, there could be no

justification whatsoever for not according similar treatment to
the appellants. As will be seen hereafter, the solitary reason put
forward by the respondents for not releasing the appellants'
land, namely, that most of it was lying vacant was ex-facie
B erroneous. In this context, it will be apposite to take cognizance
of the notings recorded by the officers and the Special
Secretary to the Chief Minister of the State on the objections
filed by the appellants:

{i) 09.10.1989
c
"For aqquiring pie land of Usha stud farm and Agricultural
farms, Gurgaon, Sector-4 notification dated 7.12.88 was
advertised in national newspaper the Tribune on 14.12.88
and in The NAV BHARAT Times on 17.12.88. It was
D issued in the vicinity on 9.12.88. Section 5-A objections
were received from four persons which are put in the file.
The report of the land acquisition collector is marked on
page "K".

I have studied the objections. The details of the

E
development on this land before section 4 has been made
which can be seen on page B . On the shajra plan this
development has also been marked which is at page" kh".
Out of the total land of 55 Acres A class construction is
on 1K-11 M, Class B construction is on 18 Marias and
F class C and D construction is on 6 k. In my view the class
A construction of residential accommodation should not be
.acquired while the rest of the land should be acquired.

One of the objections raised by the objectors is that earlier

G when the land of the objectors was released land of other
land o'IA'lers like Rani Shaver Farm, Jwala Textile Mills, and
lndo-swiss Times ltd and others land was also released.
But now only the land of the objectors is being re acquired
while not of the others. In order to get to get a solution to
H this objection, it is my suggestion that before we i_ssue
USHA STUD AND AGRICULTURAL FARMS PRIVATE 659
LIMITED v. STATE OF HARYANA [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Section 6 notification in respect of the land of the objectors, _ A
we should issue Section 4 notification to re acquire the
land of the others so that the objectors do not have the
ground of discrimination available.

The objectors have also written that when their land 8

was released earlier they had deposited the development
charges. My view on this may be seen on page 65 whereby
it is clear that the objectors had sent a cheque of 1 lakh of
Rupees to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon without
being asked to do so. In my view, in case this cheque has C
already not been returned then the Estate Officer should
be instructed to return the cheque immediately.
Sd/-
Additional Director Urban Estates
9-10-1989" D
(ii} 09.11.1989

"The objection of M/s Usha Stud and Agricultural Farm,

Gurgaon whose lands are now to be notified, u/s 6 of the
LA. Act have clearly stated the aspect of discrimination E
since, lands in respect of M/s Rani Shaver, Jawala Textile
Mills Indian Swiss Time Ltd. notified for acquisition in Nov.,
1981 along with Usha Stud simultaneously and
subsequently all these were released.

However, now only lands of M/s Usha Stud and Agricultural F

Farms are proposed to be acquired leaving the other
lands.

The ADUE has therefore proposed that to remove any plea

of discrimination the lands of Mis Rani Shaver, Jawala G
Textile Mills and lndo Swiss time should also now be
acquired and therefore notified simultaneously.

To my mind this would not a practicable proposition sinee

- all these are functioning enterprises and to disturb and
H
 660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 5 S.C.R.

A disrupt them through acquisition would not be appropriate.

Therefore keeping into consideration the aspect of

discrimination and the report of ADUE the Government
may take an appropriate view regarding notifying this land
B u/s 6 which should have to be done pFior to 6.12.89.
Sd/-
D. U. E.
9-11-89"
C.T.C.P.
c
(iii) 17 .11.1989

"In view of the position explained by the DUE, we need not

issue the notification under Section 6 for this land. This land
was earlier released from acquisition on the grounds
D
mentioned on Pages 13 to 17 (LFll) (Noting portion), There
is no change in the situation even now.

Dy. CM(l)/CM may kindly see for approval.

Sd/- C.T.C.P.
E 17.11.89
Dy.C.M.(I)

Sd/-Dy. CM
F 27.11.89"
CM.

(iv) 05.12.1989

"Reg. Acquisition of land of M/S Usha Stud Agricultural

G
Farm, Gurgaon.

C.M. has ordered that the notification under section 6 for

the acquisition of land of M/S Usha Stud Agricultural Farm
may be issued because it is mostly lying vacant. He has
H further ordered that vacant lands belonging to M/S Ranf
 USHA STUD AND AGRICULTURAL FARMS PRIVATE 661
LIMITED v. STATE OF HARYANA [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Showers Farm and Jawala Textiles may also be notified A
for acquisition.
Sd/-SSCM
5.12.89."
18. A reading of the above reproduced notings makes it
8
clear that while the Additional Director and the Director, Urban
Estates Department had treated the appellants' case as similar
to Mis. Rani Shaver Poultry Farm Ltd. and others, the Chief
Minister ordered the issue of notification under Section 6(1) in
respect of the land of appellant No.1 by assuming that major
portion of it was lying vacant. Of course, he also ordered that C
the vacant lands belonging to M/s. Rani Shaver Poultry Farm
Ltd. and Jawala Textiles may also be notified for acquisition. It
is a different thing that in the second round also the lands owned
by M/s. Rani Shaver Poultry Farm Ltd. and four others were
released during the pendency of the writ petitions and the civil D
appeal filed by them. It is intriguing that while ordering the issue
of notification under Section 6(1), the Chief Minister did not
even advert to the objections filed by the appellants and the
report made by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section
5-A(2). He was totally oblivious of the fact that the appellants E
had already utilised substantial portion of their land for
establishing Stud Farm and for other activities, like, animal
husbandry, agriculture, horticulture, nursery and dairy farming
and had also constructed a large number of buildings by
spending crores of rupees and planted 5,000 trees. Be that as F
it may, the direction given by the Chief Minister for the issue of
notification under Section 6(1) without considering the
objections of the appellants and other relevant factors must be
held as vitiated due to non application of mind.
G
19. What is most surprising is that not only the Chief
Minister, but the High Court also overlooked the fact that after
the Chief Minister had ordered acquisition ofvacant land
I belonging to M/s. Rani Shaver Poultry Farm Ltd. and others
and notification dated 11.9.1990 was issued, the State
H
 662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R. -

A Government and/or HUDA executed agreement with them and

released the acquired land leaving out the appellants' land and
in this manner they were subjected to hostile- discrimination.

20. We also find merit in the argument of the learned senior

counsel for the appellants that the declaration issued by the
8
State Government was vitiated due to violation of Section 5-A
(2) read with Section 6(1 ). For the sake of reference, Sections
4, 5-A and 6 of the Act are reproduced below:

"4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers

c ·of officers thereupon.-(1) Whenever it appears to the
appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed
or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a
company, a notification to that effect shall be published in
the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating
D in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional
language and the Collector shall cause public notice of the
substance of such notification to be given at convenient
places in the said locality (the last of the dates of such
publication and the giving of such public notice, being
E hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the
notification).

(2) Thereupon it shall be lawful for any officer, either

generally or specially authorised by such Government in
this behalf, and for his servants and workmen.-
F
to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such
locality;

to dig or bore into the sub-soil;

G to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land
is adapted for such purpose;

to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken

and the intended line of the work (if any) proposed to be
H
USHA STUD AND AGRICULTURAL FARMS PRIVATE 663
LIMITED v. STATE OF HARYANA [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
made thereon; A

to mark such levels, boundaries and line by placing marks

and cutting trenches; and,

where otherwise the survey cannot be completed and the

levels taken and the boundaries and line marked, to cut B
down and clear away any part of any standing crop, fence
or jungle:

Provided that no person shall enter into any building or

upon any enclosed court or garden attached to a dwelling c
house (unless with the consent of the occupier thereof)
without previously giving such occupier at least seven
days' notice in writing of his intention to do so.

5-A. Hearing of objections.-·(1) Any person interested D

in any land which has been notified under Section 4, sub-
section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a
public purpose or for a company may, within thirty days
from the date of the publication of the notification, object
to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality,
as the case may be. E

(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made

to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the
objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any
person authorised by him in this behalf or by pleader and F
shall, after hearing all such objections and after making
such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either
make a report in respect of the land which has been
notified under Section 4, sub-section (1), or make different
reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the G
appropriate Government, containing his recommendations
on the objections, together with the record of the
proceedings held by him, for the decision of that
Government. The decision of the appropriate Government
on the objections shall be final.
H
 664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 5 S.C.R.

A (3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be

deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to
claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired
under this Act.

6. Declaration that land is required for a public

B
purpose.-(1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this
Act, when the appropriate Government is satisfied, after
considering the report, if any, made under Section 5-A,
sub-section (2), that any particular land is needed for a
public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be
c made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to
such Government or of some officer duly authorised to
certify its orders, and different declarations may be made
from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land
covered by the same notification under Section 4, sub-
D section (1 ), irrespective of whether one report or different
reports has or have been made (wherever required) under
Section 5-A, sub-section (2):

Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular

E land covered by a notification under Section 4, sub-section
(1)-

(i) * * *
(ii) published after the commencement of the Land
F Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after
the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of
the notification:

Provided further that no such declaration shall be made

unless the compensation to be awarded for such property
G
is to be paid by a Company, or wholly or partly out of public
revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local
authority.

Explanation 1.-ln computing any of the periods referred

H
USHA STUD AND AGRICULTURAL FARMS PRIVATE 665
LIMITED v. STATE OF HARYANA [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
to in the first proviso, the period during which any action A
or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification
issued under Section 4, sub-section (1), is stayed by an
order of a Court shall be excluded.

Explanation 2.-Where the compensation to be awarded 8

for such property is to be paid out of the funds of a
corporation owned or controlled by the State, such
compensation shall be deemed to be compensation paid
out of public revenues.

(2) Every declaration shall be published in the Official C

Gazette, and in two daily newspapers circulating in the
locality in which the land is situate of which at least one
shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall
cause public notice of the substance of such declaration
to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the D
last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such
public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of
the publication of the declaration), and such declaration
shall state the district or other territorial division in which
the land is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its E
approximate area, and, where a plan shall have been
made of the land, the place where such plan may be
inspected.

(3) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that

the land is needed for a public purpose or for a Company,
F
as the case may be; and, after making such declaration,
the appropriate Government may acquire the land in
manner hereinafter appearing."

21. An analysis of the above-reproduced provisions shows G

that Section 4 empowers the appropriate Government to initiate
the proceedings for the acquisition of land. Section 4(1) lays
down that w~never it appears to the appropriate Government
that land in a~y locality is needed or is likely to be needed for.
any public purpose or for a company, then a notification to that H
 666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20131 s s".c.R.

A effect is required to be published in the Official Gazette and

two daily newspapers having circulation in the locality. Of these,
one paper has to be in the regional language. A duty is also
cast on the Collector, as defined in Section 3(c), to cause public
notice of the substance of such notification to be given at
B convenient places in the locality. The last date of publication
and giving of public notice is treated as the date of publication
of the notification.

22. Section 4(2) lays-down that after publication of the

C notification under Section 4(1), any officer authorised by the
Government in this behalf, his servants or workmen can enter
upon and survey and take levels of any land in the locality, dig
or bore into the sub-soil, and to do all other acts necessary for
ascertaining that the land is suitable for the purpose of
acquisition. The officer concerned, his servants or workmen can
D fix the boundaries of the land proposed to be acquired and the
intended line of the work, if any, proposed to be made pn it.
They can also mark such levels and boundaries by marks and
cutting trenches and cut down and clear any part of any standing
crops, fence or jungle for the purpose of completing the survey,
E and taking level, and marking of boundaries and line. However,
neither the officer nor his servants or workmen can, without the
consent of the occupier, enter into any building or upon any
enclosed court or garden attached to a dwelling house without
giving seven days' notice to the occupier.
F
23. Section 5-A, which embodies the most important
dimension of the rules of natural justice, lays down that any
person interested in any land notified under Section 4(1) may,
within 30 days of publication of the notification, submit objection
G in writing against the proposed acquisition of land or of any land
in the locality to the Collector. The Collector is required to give
the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or
by any person authorised by him or by pleader. After hearing
the objector(s) and making such further inquiry, as he may think
necessary, the Collector has to make a report in respect of land
H notified under Section 4(1) with his recommendations on the
USHA STUD AND AGRICULTURAL FARMS PRIVATE 667
LIMITED v. STATE OF HARYANA [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
objections and forward the same to the Government along with A
the record of the proceedings held by him. The Collector can
make different reports in respect of different parcels of land
proposed to be acquired.

24. Upon receipt of the Collector's report, the appropriate

B
Government is required to take action under Section 6(1) which
lays down that if after considering the report, if any, made under
Section 5-A(2), the appropriate Government is satisfied that
any particular land is needed for a public purpose, then a
declaration to that effect is required to be made under the C
signatures of a Secretary to the Government or of some officer
duly authorised to certify its orders. This section also envisages
making of different declarations from time to time in respect of
different parcels of land covered by the same notification issued
under Section 4(1). In terms of clause (ii) of the proviso to
Section 6(1), no declaration in respect of any particular land D
covered by a notification issued under Section 4(1), which is
published after 24.9.1989 can be made after expiry of one year
from the date of publication of the notification. To put it
differently, a declaration is required to be made under Section
6(1) within one year from the date of publication of the E
notification under Section 4(1).

25. In terms of Section 6(2), every declaration made under

Section 6(1) is required to be published in the Official Gazette
and in two daily newspapers having circulation in the locality in F
which the land proposed to be acquired is situated. Of these,
at least one must be in the regional language. The Collector is
also required to cause public notice of the substance of such
declaration to be given at convenient places in the locality. The
declaration to be published under Section 6(2) must contain the G
district or other territorial division in which the land is situate,
the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area or a
plan is made in respect of land and the place where such plan
can be inspected.

26. Section 6(3) lays down that the declaration made under H
 668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201~] 5 S.C.R.

A Section 6(1) shall be conclusive evidence of the fact that land

is needed for a public purpose.

27. After publication of the declaration under Section 6(1),

the Co.llector is required to take order from the State
B Government for the acquisition of land and cause it to be
measured and planned (Sections 7 and 8). The next stage is
the issue of public notice and individual notice to the persons
interested in the land to file their claim for compensation.
Section 11 envisages holding of an enquiry into the claim and
passing of an award by the Collector who is required to take
C into consideration the provisions contained in Section 23.

28. In Munshi Singh v. Union of India (1973) 2 SCC 337,

this Court emphasised the importance of Section 5-A in the
following words:
D
" ... Sub-section (2) of Section 5-A makes it obligatory on
the Collector to give an objector an opportunity of being
heard. After hearing all objections and making further
inquiry he is to make a report to the appropriate
Government containing his recommendation on the
E objections. The decision of the appropriate Government
on the objections is then final. The declaration under
Section 6 has to be made after the appropriate
Government is satisfied, on a consideration of the report,
if any, made by the Collector under Section 5-A(2). The
F legislature has, therefore, made complete provisions for
the persons interested to file objections against the
proposed acquisition and for the disposal of their
objections. It is only in cases of Qrgency that special
powers have been conferred on the appropriate
G Government to dispense with the provisions of Section 5-
A."

29. In State of Punjab v. Gurdia/ Singh (1980) 2 SCC 471,

the Court observed as under:
H
USHA STUD AND AGRICULTURAL FARMS PRIVATE 669
.LIMITED v. STATE OF HARYANA [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
" ... it is fundamental that compulsory taking of a man's A
property is a serious matter and the smaller the man the
more serious the matter. Hearing him before depriving him
is both reasonable and pre-emptive of arbitrariness, and
denial of this administrative fairness is constitutional
anathema except for good reasons. Save in real urgency 8
where public interest does not brook even the minimum
time needed to give a hearing land acquisition authorities
should not, having regard to Articles 14 (and 19), burke
an enquiry under Section 17 of the Act. Here a slumbering
process, pending for years and suddenly exciting itself into C
immediate forcible taking, makes a travesty of emergency
power."

30. In Shyam Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar (1993) 4

SCC 255, this Court reiterated that compliance of Section 5-
A is mandatory and observed: D

" ... The decision of the Collector is supposedly final unless

the appropriate Government chooses to interfere therein
and cause affectation, suo motu or on the application of
any person interested in the land. These requirements E
obviously lead to the positive conclusion that the
proceeding before the Collector is a blend of public and
individual enquiry. The person interested, or known to be
interested, in the land is to be served personally of the
notification, giving him the opportunity of objecting to the
F
acquisition and awakening him to .such right. That the
objection is to be in writing, is indicative of the fact that
the enquiry into. the objection is to focus his individuai
cause as well as public cause. That at the time of the
enquiry, for which prior notice shall be essential, the
objector has the right to appear in person or through. G
pleader and substantiate his objection by evidence and
argument."

31. In Raghbir Singh Sehrawat's case (supra), this Court

re!erred to the judgments in Munshi Singh v. Union of India H
 670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R.

A (1973) 2 SCC 337, State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (1980)

2 SCC 471, Shyam Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar (1993)
4 SCC 255, Union of India v. Mukesh Hans (2004) 8 SCC
14, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur
Chenai (2005) 7 SCC 627, Radhy Shyam v. State of U.P.
B (2011) 5 SCC 553 and observed:

"In this context, it is necessary to remember that the rules

of natural justice have been ingrained in the scheme of
Section 5-A with a view to ensure that before any person
is deprived of his land by way of compulsory acquisition,
c he must get an opportunity to oppose the decision of the
State Government and/or its agencies/instrumentalities to
acquire the particular parcel of land. At the hearing, the
objector can make an effort to convince the Land
Acquisition Collector to make recommendation against the
D acquisition of his land. He can also point out that the land
proposed to be acquired is not suitable for the purpose
specified in the notification issued under Section 4(1). Not
only this, he can produce evidence to show that another
piece of land is available and the same can be utilised for
E execution of the particular project or scheme. Though it is
neither possible nor desirable to make a list of the grounds
on which the landowner can persuade the Collector to
make recommendations against the proposed acquisition
of land, but what is important is that the Collector should
F give a fair opportunity of hearing to the objector and
objectively consider his plea against the acquisition of
land. Only thereafter, he should make recommendations
supported by brief reasons as to why "the particular piece
of land should or should not be acquired and whether or
not the plea put forward by the objector merits acceptance.
G
In other words, the recommendations made by the
Collector must reflect objective application of mind to the
objections filed by the landowners and other interested
persons."
H
USHA STUD AND AGRICULTURAL FARMS PRIVATE 671
LIMITED v. STATE OF HARYANA [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
32. Jn Kamal Trading (P) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal A
(supra), this Court again considered the scope of Section 5-A
and observed:

"13. Section 5-A(1) of the LA Act gives a right to any

person interested in any land which has been notified 8
under Section 4(1) as being needed or likely to be needed
for a public purpose to raise objections to the acquisition
of the said land. Sub-section (2) of Section 5-A requires
the Collector to give the objector an opportunity of being
heard in person or by any person authorised by him in this
behalf. After hearing the objections, the Collector can, if C
he thinks it necessary, make further inquiry. Thereafter, he
has to make a report to the appropriate Government
containing his recommendations on the objections together
with the record of the proceedings held by him for the
decision of the appropriate Government and the decision D
of the appropriate Government on the objections shall be
final.

14. It must be borne in mind that the proceedings under

the LA Act are based on the principle of eminent domain E
and Section 5-A is the only protection available to a person
whose lands are sought to be acquired. It is a minimal
safeguard afforded to him by law to protect himself from
arbitrary acquisition by pointing out to the authority
concerned, inter alia, that the important ingredient, namely, F
"public purpose" is absent in the proposed acquisition or
the acquisition is mala fide. The LA Act being an
expropriatory legislation, its provisions will have to be
strictly construed.

15. Hearing contemplated under Section 5-A(2) is G

necessary to enable the Collector to deal effectively with
the objections raised against the proposed acquisition and
make a report. The report of the Collector referred to in
this provision is not an empty formality because it is
required to be placed before the appropriate Government H
 672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 5 S.C.R.

A together with the Collector's recommendations and the

record of the case. It is only upon receipt of the said report
that the Government can take a final decision on the
objections. It is_ pertinent to note that declaration under
Section 6 has to be made only after the appropriate
B Governrr.ent is satisfied on the consideration of the report,
if any, made by the Collector under Section 5-A(2). As said
by this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., the
appropriate Government while issuing declaration under
Section 6 of the LA Act is required to apply its mind not
c only to the objections filed by the owner of the land in
question, but also to the report which is submitted by the
Collector upon making such further inquiry thereon as he
thinks necessary and also the recommendations made by
him in that behalf.
D
16. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the LA Act makes a
declaration under Section 6 conclusive evidence that the
land is needed for a public purpose. Formation of opinion
by the appropriate Government as regards the public
purpose must be preceded by application of mind as
E regards consideration of relevant factors and rejection of
irrelevant ones. It is, therefore, that the hearing
contemplated under Section 5-A and the report made by
the Land Acquisition Officer and his recommendations
assume importance. It is implicit in this provision that
F before making declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act,
the State Government must have the benefit of a report
containing recommendations of the Collector submitted
under Section 5-A(2) of the LA Act. The recommendations
must indicate objective application of mind."
G
33. The ratio of the aforesaid judgments is that Section 5-
A(2), which represents statutory embodiment of the rule of audi
alteram partem, gives an opportunity to the objector to make
an endeavour to convince the Collector that his land is not
H required for the public purpose specified in the notification
USHA STUD AND AGRICULTURAL FARMS PRIVATE 673
LIMITED v. STATE OF HARYANA [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
issued under Section 4(1) or that there are other valid reasons A
for not acquiring the same. That section also makes it
obligatory for the Collector to submit report(s) to the appropriate
Government containing his recommendations on the objections,
together with the record of the proceedings held by him so that
the Government may take appropriate decision on the B
objections. Section 6(1) provides that if the appropriate
Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any,
mad_e by the Collector under Section 5-A(2) that particular land
is needed for the specified public purpose then a declaration
should be made. This necessarily implies that the State c
Government is required to apply mind to the report of the
Collector and take final decision on the objections filed by the
landowners and other interested persons. Then and then only,
a declaration can be made under Section 6(1).

34. As a sequel to the above discussion, we hold that the D

decision taken at the level of the Chief Minister was not in
consonance with the scheme of Section 5-A(2) read with
Section 6(1). We further hold that the State Government's
refusal to release the appellants' land resulted in violation of
their right to equality granted under Article 14 of the Constitution. E

35. In the result, the app~als are allowed, the impugned

order is set aside and the declaration issued by the State
Government under Section 6(1) is quashed. However, it is
made clear that this judgment shall not preclude the State F
Government from taking fresh decision after objectively
considering the objections filed by the appellants under Section
5-A(1).

36. If the final decision of the State Government is adverse

to the appellants, then they shall be free to challenge the same G
before an appropriate judicial forum and urge all legally
permissible contentions in support of their cause.

B.B.B. · Appeals allowed.

H