SHAKUNTALA YADAV AND OTHERS versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 406, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 406 
SHAKUNTALA YADAV AND OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal Nos.2174-2175 of2012 etc.) 
B 
MARCH 09, 2016 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.] 
Land Acquistion Act, 1894 - s.48 - Release under - Of 
acquired land - Sought by land owner - On the ground that the 
C land was coming under Lal Dora - Request for release turned down 
by High Powered Committee on the ground that possession of the 
land had already been taken and handed over to the beneficiary of 
the acquisition - The order was confirmed by High Court - On 
appeal, held: There is nothing on record to show that physical 
possession of the land had already been taken and handed over to 
D the beneficiary - lf the land falls in Lal Dora, its release cannot be 
denied - Matter remitted to High Powered Committee to ascertain 
whether the land falls in Lal Dora. 
E 
F 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. There being no Rojnama to show that the physical 
possession bad already been taken, nor any pleadings in that 
regard, it cannot be said that the possession bad already been 
taken and banded over to HUDA. Unless the property is taken 
possession of, in accordance with law, there arises no question of 
banding over the property to HUDA. Symbolic possession will 
not serve the purpose. [Para 13] [411-A-B) 
Ragl1bir Singh Sehrawat vs. State of Haryana and 
others 2011 (14) SCR 1113 : (2012) 1 SCC 792 - relied 
on. 
2. In case the land of the appellants is in Lal
Dora, there is 
G no reason to deny, a similar treatment as bas been granted to 
Millennium Industries Private Limited. However, on the 
pleadings available before this Court, it is difficult to arrive at a 
definite conclusion in that regard. Therefore, it is just and proper 
to remand the matter to the High Powered Committee. It is 
H 
clarified that the request of the appellants shall not be turned 
406
'< 
SHAKUNTALA YADAV v. STATE OF HARYANA 
407 
down, on the ground of operation of Section 16 of the Land 
A 
Acquisition Act. [Paras 14 and 16) [411-A-C, E) 
Case Law Reference 
2011 (14) SCR 1113 
relied on. 
Para 13 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2174-
B 
2175 of2012 
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.05.2008 and 04. 12.2009 
in CWP No. 7706 of 2008 and Review Application No. 399 of 2009 
passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh 
Diljit SinghAhluwalia,Amarjit Singh Bedi, Md. Asfar Heyat Wasi, 
C 
Advs,, for the Appellants. 
Rahul Verma, AA.G, Sanjay Kumar" Visen, Adv., for the 
Respondents .. , 
WITH 
C.A. '!\)o. 2176-2177/2012 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. I. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 
2. The appellants are aggrieved since their request for release of 
1.23 acres ofland falling in Khasra No. 23/8/1, 8/2, 9/2, 12/2 and 13/1 in 
village Sahaul, Tehsil and District Gurgaon and .25 acres ofland falling 
I Khasra No. 23/10/1 in the same village has been rejected. 
3. Placing reliance on the letter of the Finance Minister ofHaryana, 
for releasing lands coming under Lal Dora, the appellants approached 
the High Powered Committee, It appears that the High Powered 
Committee turned down the request on the ground that possession of 
the property had already been taken, pursuant to Award passed on 
12.3.2004 and that the same had already been handed over to Haryana 
Urban Development Authority
(in short 'the HUDA'). That decision of 
the High Powered Committee was challenged before the High Court 
leading to the impugned judgments. 
4. The High Court endorsed the view taken by the High Powered 
Committee and has held that once the acquired land has already been 
taken possession of, there is no question ofrelease under Section 48 of 
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act'). 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
408 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State sought to establish 
that the land had already been taken possession of, by inviting our attention 
· to the order passed by the High Powered Committee on 28.3.2008, 
wherein it is stated as follows :-
"8. In fact the petitioner had two pockets ofland measuring 1.23 
acres falling in Khasra No. 23/8/1, 8/2, 9/2, 12/2, 13/1and0.25 
acres falling in Khasra No. 23/1 Oil. The applicants had applied · 
for change of land use of these khasra numbers for setting up of 
information technology unit on 5.12.2005 in the office of Director, 
Town and Country Planning. The said application was returned 
vide No. G-l 72 I -AD(B)-2006/9881 dated 21,4,2006 mentioning 
that the applied land is under acquisition and the applicants were 
asked to get the land released and then apply for change of land 
use permission. The land is already acquired and HUDA has 
taken a possession of land of other land owners vide Rapat 
Rojnamcha dated 12.3.2004. It was also informed by ChiefTown 
Planner (HUDA) that HUDA has planned industrial plots on this 
land and allotted 11 No. such plots. It was noted that land of the 
applicant is lying vacant. Since. as mentioned above the land is 
awarded, possession of the adjoining land stands taken and also 
stands allotted by HUDA, therefore, the land of the petitioner 
mentioned in CWP No. l 0294/2004 and 14669 of2005 cannot be 
considered for release." 
6.
We find it difficult to appreciate the contention of the learned 
counsel for the State, that the High Powered Committee had taken note 
of t_he fact of taking possession. On the other hand, what is revealed 
from the order is that the lands which were taken possession and handed 
over to HUDA was that of other land owners. The stand inthe counter 
affidavit is not clear on the aspect of taking possession. On the other 
hand, the appel I ants assert that they have never been dispossessed from 
the land. 
7. In the above circumstances, this Court on 7'h July, 20 I 0 passed 
G 
the following order:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in pursuance of 
the orders of the Finance Minister ofHaryana, issued in the year 
1981, two acres ofland of Lal Dora on all four sides of the lands 
in Village Sarhaul, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was left free from 
H 
acquisition and this has been confirmed by the Land Acquisition
SHAKUNTALA YADAV v. STATE OF HARYANA 
[KURIAN, J.] 
Officer, Urban Estate, Gurgaon, Haryana by letter dated 2.3 .2005 
and by the District Town Planner Enforcement, Gurgaon in his 
letter dated 9.6.2006 addressed to Millennium Industries Private 
Limited who are neighbours of petitioners. He also submits that 
on the basis of the said direction, the land of Millennium Industries 
Private Limited has been left out of acquisition. It is .submitted 
that the land of the petitioners also falls within the two acres area 
around the village as in the case of Millennium Industries Private 
- Limited but the High Powered Committee (HPC) has erroneously 
refused to leave out the land of the petitioners. 
In view of the said submissions, issue notice. Status quo regarding 
possession." 
8. Thereafter it is seen that the matters were adjourned from 
time to time, to 13.9.2010, 9.11.2010, 22.2.2011, 30.3.2011, 4.5.2011 all 
before the Registrar and on 22. 7.2011 before the Court. Thereafter, on 
26.8.2011, this Court passed a specific order that the counter affidavit 
was vague on the aspect of Lal Dora and Millennium Industries Private 
Limited, specifically referring to in the order dated 7'h July, 2010. The 
order dated 26.8.2011 reads as follows :-
"We find that the counter affidavit filed on behalf of 
respondents 1 to 3 does not deal with the submission that was 
409 
A 
B 
c 
D 
recorded by this Court in the order dated 7.7.2010. 
E 
At this stage, learned counsel for the
respondents submitted 
that an additional affidavit with reference to the order dated 
7.7.2010will be filed. 
Finally, adjourned by four weeks." 
9. On 23 .9.2011, since time was sought for additional affidavit, a 
detailed order was passed, which reads as follows :-
"By order dated 7.7.2010, we had noted the submission of the 
petitioner that on the orders of the Finance Minister of Haryana, 
issued iri the year 1981, two acres of land of Lal Dora on all four 
sides in village Sarhaul, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was left free 
from acquisition and this has been confirmed by the Land 
Acquisition Officer, Urban Estate, Gurgaon, Haryana by'fotter 
dated 2.3.2005 and by the District Town Planning and Enforcement 
by letter dated 9.6.2006. The contention of the petitioner was 
that on tlfat ground the lands of Millennium Industries Private 
F 
G 
H
410 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Limited who are neighbours of petitioners were left out of 
acquisition, but their land, which is similarly situated, has not been 
left out. 
In the counter filed, this issue was not dealt with and consequently 
on 26.8.2-011, when we drew the attention to this fact, the learned 
B 
counsel for the respondent submitted that an additional affidavit 
will be filed. But the said additional affidavit has not been filed. 
Learned counsel for respondents I to 3 again seeks time. We 
find no reason to grant further time. However, finally four weeks' 
time is granted to file an additional affidavit subject to deposit of 
Rs.2500/- as costs with the Supreme Court Legal Services 
C 
Committee and producing acknowledgment within that period. 
List thereafter."· 
I 0. Despite the State being put on cost for filing additional affidavit, 
it was noted by this Court when the matter was taken up thereafter on 
21.11.2011, that the additional affidavit had not been filed. Hence four 
D 
weeks' more time was granted and the matter came up before this Court 
again on 3.1.2012. It was noted that neither the cost was deposited nor 
the affidavit filed. Therefore, this Court imposed a further cost of Rs.5000/ 
- and gave one more opportunity, by way of last indulgence, to file the 
additional affidavit. Yetthe additional affidavit was not filed and therefore, 
E 
on JO•h February, 2012, this Court passed the following order :-
F 
G 
"Right of the
respondents to file additional affidavit is closed. 
Delay condoned in filing special leave petitions. 
Leave granted. 
List the matters for hearing at an early date. 
In the meanwhile, interim order to continue." 
11. We have extensively referred to the background of the case 
before this Court on1y to indicate that there was no assistance on the 
two crucial aspects which are actually pivotal for ~'decision in the case. 
12. The High Court, unfortunately, has gone only on one tangent 
that the land having vested with the Government on operation of Section 
16 of the Act, the request for release under Section 48 cannot be 
considered. An attempt for review, when the appellants pointed out the 
instance ofMillennium Industries Private Limited, in similar circumstances, 
was also turned down, without going into. those aspects, by passing a 
H 
cryptic order.
SHAKUNTALA YADAV v. STATE OF HARYANA 
[KURIAN, J.] 
13. There being no Rojnama to show that the physical possession 
had already been taken, nor any pleadings in that regard, we find it 
difficult to appreciate the submission made by the learned counsel for 
the State that the possession had already been taken and handed over to 
HUDA. Unless the property is taken possession of, in accordance wit~ 
law, there arises no question of handing over the property to HUD,(. 
Symbolic possession, as has been held by this Court in (2012) I SCC 
792 titled as Raghbir Singh Sehrawat versus State ofHaryana and others, 
will not serve the purpose . 
I4. In case the land of the appellants is in Lal Dora, we find no 
. reason to deny, .a similar treatment as has been granted to Millennium 
Industries Private Limited. However, on the pleadings available before 
this Court, we find it difficult to arrive at a definite conclusion in that 
regard.' Therefore, we deem it just and proper to remand the matter to 
the High Powered Committee. 
15. In the above circumstances, the appeals are allowed, the 
impugned orders passed by the High Court are set aside. The impugned 
order passed by t11e High Powered Committee is also set aside. The. 
request made by the appellants for release of their land are remanded to 
responden!'No.3 - High Powered Committee for consideration afresh. 
16. We make it clear that the request of the appellants shall not 
be turned down, on the ground of operation of Section
16 of the Act. In 
case it is found that the land is in Lal Dora, they shall also be granted 
similar treatment, as has been given to Millennium Industries Private 
Limited. 
I 7'. The orders, as above, shall be passed expeditiously by 
Respondent No.3 - High Powered Committee, at any rate, within a 
period of three months from the _date of production of copy of this 
judgment. In the event of any delay beyond the said period, the members 
of the Committee shall be personally liable for costs to the tune. of 
Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred only) each per day. 
18. Till orders are passed, as above, the interim orders passed by 
this Court to maintain status quo, with regard to possession, will continue 
to operate. 
19. No order as to costs. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeals allowed. 
411 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H