‘Illegal’ land acquisition for Metro line quashed

The court came down heavily on the state for acquiring land in the garb of “public interest” and releasing 90 per cent of the notified land to private developers for alleged wrongful gains. A division bench comprising Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Gurdev Singh passed an 85-page judgment on Tuesday.

The ruling assumes significance since the government had acquired the land on the “pretext” of constructing Delhi Metro (linking Gurgaon) and a multi-level parking. The government has now been directed to consider afresh the “illegal” release of the land measuring around 6 acres. The land was acquired during the regime of former Haryana chief minister Om Prakash Chautala,vide notifications dated August 13,2001,and August 9,2002,to be developed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority.

Several owners,including one Amita Banta,moved the court,alleging that the acquisition was made without inviting objections and that the land was released to private builders. Similar land on the other side of the road,occupied by private parties,was excluded from acquisition,the petitioner alleged.

The land is located on the Faridabad-Gurgaon highway,adjacent to Hotel Bristol and Gymkhana Club,Gurgaon.

The Haryana government took the stand that it had absolute discretion to withdraw from acquisition as per law. Rubbishing the stand,the high court ruled: “The plea that the purpose can change any time before the completion of acquisition and the vesting of land in state cannot be accepted.” The bench held: “Action of the state has to be consistent with the declared public purpose. Development by the state and development by a private party stand on a different footing. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.”

The judgment reads: “Since the power of acquisition has not been exercised for public purpose,law is vitiated…”

Making sure that private builders do not benefit from the illegal release of land by the state,the bench observed: “The question now is as to what should be the final order. The guiding principle has to be ubi jus ibi remedium: wherever there is a wrong,there is a remedy. This court may quash acquisition proceedings if the same are vitiated by colourable exercise of power. In doing so,the court cannot ignore that the release becomes final and the person in whose favour acquisition proceedings are withdrawn may be immensely benefited on account of wrong exercise of discretion in his favour. He may retain benefits taken illegally. This may have to be undone.”

“The court may require the state to recall such release and also to ascertain whether the release was for any extraneous consideration and how wrongful gain or loss can be readjusted. Released land may be restored to the state or sold in public auction. The state itself may recall its illegal actions,” the judgment adds.