BHARAT SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

BHARAT SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

The substance of the notification for land acquisition was duly published in the localities, as evidenced by official records and receipt of objections; the acquisition was for a declared public purpose—development and industrialisation—and not for profiteering; HUDA was the acquiring authority for public purpose, even if the land was later transferred to HSIDC; and there was no evidence of discrimination or violation of proper procedure. Failure to plead and prove contrary facts bars such claims in writ petitions.

Parties
Appellants / Petitioners: Bharat Singh & Ors.; Respondents: State of Haryana & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 September 1988
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal and Writ Petition (civil) / Appeal From Punjab & Haryana High Court and Original Writ Under Article 32
Outcome
All appeals and writ petitions dismissed.
Legal Topics
Acquisition for Public Purpose, Pleadings in Writ Proceedings, Development and Industrialisation of Land, Compulsory Acquisition, Discrimination in Acquisition, Compensation for Acquired Land
Constitutional Law Land Acquisition Administrative Law Acquisition for Public Purpose Pleadings in Writ Proceedings Development and Industrialisation of Land Compulsory Acquisition Discrimination in Acquisition +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bharat Singh & Ors.

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Haryana & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal and Writ Petition (civil) / Appeal From Punjab & Haryana High Court and Original Writ Under Article 32

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the localities concerned.
  2. 2 Whether the acquisition of land by Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) was for a public purpose or a profiteering venture.
  3. 3 Whether the acquisition was for a company (HSIDC) requiring compliance with Part-III of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The substance of the notification for land acquisition was duly published in the localities, as evidenced by official records and receipt of objections; the acquisition was for a declared public purpose—development and industrialisation—and not for profiteering; HUDA was the acquiring authority for public purpose, even if the land was later transferred to HSIDC; and there was no evidence of discrimination or violation of proper procedure. Failure to plead and prove contrary facts bars such claims in writ petitions.

Court Disposition

All appeals and writ petitions dismissed.

Orders

  • If any appellant or petitioner has become landless due to acquisition and applies for allotment of land with HSIDC, priority may be given if eligible and plots are available.
  • Liberty to applicants to make representation regarding exemption of religious or community properties to competent authority.