Supreme Court slams top Haryana officials for land deal, suggests collusion
The Supreme Court on Monday came down heavily on top officials of the Haryana government for undermining public interest in a crucial land acquisition case involving 952 acres in Panchkula dating back almost 25 years, lamenting that “the bureaucracy abdicated its duty” in an attempt “to curry favour with” private persons.
The Supreme Court on Monday came down heavily on top officials of the Haryana government for undermining public interest in a crucial land acquisition case involving 952 acres in Panchkula dating back almost 25 years, lamenting that “the bureaucracy abdicated its duty” in an attempt “to curry favour with” private persons.
“Private interest of a few, should give way to the public interest of the many,” asserted a bench comprising justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan, criticising the state’s decision to release prime real estate land from acquisition, raising suspicion of collusion and favouritism.
The court, in its strongly worded judgment, suggested that senior officials in the state government acted without due diligence, hastily approving the release of a parcel of land from the total land to be acquired, in favour of the respondents — Abhishek Gupta and Madhuraj Foundation.
It noted that the land was of immense strategic value, located between the Union Territory of Chandigarh and the Shivalik Range, bordering the Sukhna Lake and forest areas. The bench expressed disbelief at the speed and lack of thorough examination with which the approvals were granted, and settlement was sought to be reached between the state and the respondents while the matter remained pending before the top court.
“The confluence of circumstances—the land being prime real estate and yet suddenly and inexplicably being excluded from acquisition—do not inspire confidence as to the objectivity of the process,” said the bench, declaring the state’s decision to release the land “manifestly arbitrary”.
Noting that the release of such valuable land “without proper consideration” was baffling and detrimental to the interests of other landowners involved in the acquisition, the bench pointed out that on September 8, 2023, an assistant-level official noted that the land could not be spared for release, yet the file was inexplicably pushed for approval. Within three days, the release was endorsed by senior officials, including the additional chief secretary, urban development. No substantial reasons were recorded for this approval, leading the court to question whether all factors were adequately considered.
Condemning the bureaucratic machinery of failing in its duty to objectively assist the decision-making process, the bench held: “We are of the considered view that this is a case where the bureaucracy abdicated its duty and failed to objectively assist the decision-making authority.”
The judgment added: “While the state government undoubtedly possesses the power to release the land for lawful considerations, it cannot do so whimsically, irrationally, without any application of mind, or selectively. Condoning such action would encourage further monocratic release of other lands in complete disregard of the consequences and impact on public interest. This would likely result in the creation of small islands of unacquired lands within large swathes of acquired land.”
The court also expressed concerns about the respondents’ conduct, implying that they may have exerted undue influence over senior officials, further compromising the public interest.
“These unusual events create more than just suspicion that the respondents have been able to influence the representations of the many, as well as twist and undermine institutions and process meant for the protection of public interest. In their hurry to curry favour with the respondents, the senior bureaucrats have unfortunately failed to visualise the serious ramifications their actions could have had on the entire acquisition of more than 950 acres land and the law in general,” the bench rued.
Consequently, the apex court overturned the July 2008 judgment of the Punjab and Haryana high court, which had quashed the land acquisition process initiated by the Haryana government in 1999. It directed the state to expedite the process of acquiring the entire land, including the respondents’ land, and begin developmental works without delay. The judgment emphasised that the land must be used for the public purposes it was originally acquired for, in accordance with the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975. It further directed the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA, now Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran) to submit a compliance report by April 30, 2025.