# SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2012] 12 S.C.R. 1077
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2012-10-11
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos.7454-59 of 2012
- **Bench:** G.S. Singhvi, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/surinder-singh-brar-and-others-etc-etc-v-union-of-india-and-others-28220
- **Pages:** 94

## Headnote

A
B
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss.4, SA and 6 - Land
Acquisition in Union Territory of Chandigarh - Power of the C
Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh to sanction
acquisition - Held: Acquisition of land for and on behalf of
Union Territories must be sanctioned by the Administrator of
the particular Union Territory - No other officer competent to
exercise the power vested in 'the appropriate Government' D
under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder - Nothing in
language of s.3(1) of the 1987 Act from which it can be inferred
that the Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh
could delegate the power exercisable by 'the appropriate
Government' under the Act which was specifically entrusted E
to him by the President u!Article 239(1) of the Constitution -
Notification dated 14.8.1989 was issued u!Article 239(1) in
supersession of all previous notifications relating to the
exercise of power and functions under the Act by the
Administrators of various Union Territories - Therefore, even
F
if it is assumed that vide Notification dated 25.2.1988 (issued
u/s.3(1) of the 1987 Act), the Administrator of the Union
Territory of Chandigarh had authorised its Advisor to exercise
the power of 'the appropriate Government' under the Act, after
issuance of Notification dated 14.8.1989, the said delegation
G
will be deemed to have ceased insofar as the exercise of
power of 'the appropriate Government' vnder the Act and the
Rules framed thereunder is concerned - In absence of fresh
1077
H
1078
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012) 12 S.C.R.
A delegation by the Administrator, the Advisor could not have
exercised the power of the appropriate Government - The
Advisor to the Administrator of the Union Territory of
Chandigarh was not competent to accord approval to initiation
of the acquisition proceedings or take decision on the reports
B submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) u/s.5A(2) and
record his satisfaction that the land was needed for the
specified public purpose - Land Acquisition (Companies)
Rules, 1963 - Chandigarh (Delegation of Powers) Act, 1987
c
- s.3(1) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 239.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.5A - Acquisition of land
- Procedural safeguards - Reports prepared by the Land
Acquisition Officer (LAO) u/s.5A(2) - If vitiated due to nonconsideration of the objections filed by the landowners - Held:
0 LAO made misleading and false statement about his having
seen the revenue records and conducted spot inspection -
That apart, the reports of LAO did not contain any iota of
consideration of the objections filed by the landowners - Mere
reproduction of the substance of the objections cannot be
E equated with objective consideration thereof - Violation of the
mandate of s.5A(2) writ large on the face of the reports
prepared by the LAO - LAO failed to discharge the statutory
duty cast upon him to prepare a report after objectively
considering the objections filed u/s.5A(1) and submissions
F made by the objectors during the course of personal hearing
- The hearing required to be given uls.5A(2) to a person who
is sought to be deprived of his land and who has filed
objections u/s.5A(1) must be effective and not an empty
formality.
G
H
The questions which arose for consideration in the
present appeals in respect of the land acquisition in
question in the Union Territory of Chandigarh were, (i)
whether the Advisor to the Administrator of the Union
Territory of Chandigarh had the jurisdiction to approve
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1079
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
the acquisition of the appellants' land; (ii) whether the
A
reports prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO)
under Section 5A(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
were vitiated due to non-consideration of the objections
filed by the landowners and the same could not be made
basis for deciding whether the land was really needed for
B
the particular public purpose
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. By notific

## Text

_Characters 0–39,943 of 164,792. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39943 for what follows._

[2012] 12 S.C.R. 1077
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos.7454-59 of 2012 )
OCTOBER 11, 2012
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]
A
B
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss.4, SA and 6 - Land
Acquisition in Union Territory of Chandigarh - Power of the C
Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh to sanction
acquisition - Held: Acquisition of land for and on behalf of
Union Territories must be sanctioned by the Administrator of
the particular Union Territory - No other officer competent to
exercise the power vested in 'the appropriate Government' D
under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder - Nothing in
language of s.3(1) of the 1987 Act from which it can be inferred
that the Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh
could delegate the power exercisable by 'the appropriate
Government' under the Act which was specifically entrusted E
to him by the President u!Article 239(1) of the Constitution -
Notification dated 14.8.1989 was issued u!Article 239(1) in
supersession of all previous notifications relating to the
exercise of power and functions under the Act by the
Administrators of various Union Territories - Therefore, even
F
if it is assumed that vide Notification dated 25.2.1988 (issued
u/s.3(1) of the 1987 Act), the Administrator of the Union
Territory of Chandigarh had authorised its Advisor to exercise
the power of 'the appropriate Government' under the Act, after
issuance of Notification dated 14.8.1989, the said delegation
G
will be deemed to have ceased insofar as the exercise of
power of 'the appropriate Government' vnder the Act and the
Rules framed thereunder is concerned - In absence of fresh
1077
H
1078
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012) 12 S.C.R.
A delegation by the Administrator, the Advisor could not have
exercised the power of the appropriate Government - The
Advisor to the Administrator of the Union Territory of
Chandigarh was not competent to accord approval to initiation
of the acquisition proceedings or take decision on the reports
B submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) u/s.5A(2) and
record his satisfaction that the land was needed for the
specified public purpose - Land Acquisition (Companies)
Rules, 1963 - Chandigarh (Delegation of Powers) Act, 1987
c
- s.3(1) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 239.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.5A - Acquisition of land
- Procedural safeguards - Reports prepared by the Land
Acquisition Officer (LAO) u/s.5A(2) - If vitiated due to nonconsideration of the objections filed by the landowners - Held:
0 LAO made misleading and false statement about his having
seen the revenue records and conducted spot inspection -
That apart, the reports of LAO did not contain any iota of
consideration of the objections filed by the landowners - Mere
reproduction of the substance of the objections cannot be
E equated with objective consideration thereof - Violation of the
mandate of s.5A(2) writ large on the face of the reports
prepared by the LAO - LAO failed to discharge the statutory
duty cast upon him to prepare a report after objectively
considering the objections filed u/s.5A(1) and submissions
F made by the objectors during the course of personal hearing
- The hearing required to be given uls.5A(2) to a person who
is sought to be deprived of his land and who has filed
objections u/s.5A(1) must be effective and not an empty
formality.
G
H
The questions which arose for consideration in the
present appeals in respect of the land acquisition in
question in the Union Territory of Chandigarh were, (i)
whether the Advisor to the Administrator of the Union
Territory of Chandigarh had the jurisdiction to approve
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1079
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
the acquisition of the appellants' land; (ii) whether the
A
reports prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO)
under Section 5A(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
were vitiated due to non-consideration of the objections
filed by the landowners and the same could not be made
basis for deciding whether the land was really needed for
B
the particular public purpose
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. By notification dated 1.11.1966, the
President generally delegated the powers and functions C
of the State Government under various laws in force
immediately before 1.11.1966 to the Administrator. By all
other notifications, the power exercisable by 'the
appropriate Government' under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 and the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963
D
were delegated to the Administrator. With a view to avoid
any possibility of misuse of power by the executive
authorities, it has been repeatedly ordained that powers
and functions vested in 'the appropriate Government'
under the Act and the 1963 Rules shall be exercised only
E
by the Administrator. The seriousness with which the
Central Government has viewed such type of acquisition
is also reflected from the decision taken by the Home
Minister on 23.9.2010 in the context of the report of the
Special Auditor and the One-Man Committee. Thus, the
F
acquisition of land for and on behalf of Union Territories
must be sanctioned by the Administrator of the particular
Union Territory and no other officer is competent to
exercise the power vested in 'the appropriate
Government' under the Act and the Rules framed G
thereunder. [Para 41) [1150-C-D, F-H; 1151-A-BJ
1.2. Vide Notification dated 25.2.1988 issued under
Section 3(1) of the Chandigarh (Delegation of Powers)
Act, 1987, the Administrator directed that any power,
H
1080
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 12 S.C.R.
A authority or jurisdiction or any duty which he could
exercise or discharge by or under the provisions of any
law, rules or regulations as applicable to the Union
Territory of Chandigarh shall be exercised or discharged
by the Advisor except in cases or class of cases
B enumerated in the Schedule. There is nothing in the
language of Section 3(1) of the 1987 Act from which it can
be inferred that the Administrator can delegate the power
exercisable by 'the appropriate Government' under the
Act which was specifically entrusted to him by the
C President under Article 239(1) of the Constitution.
D
Therefore, notification dated 25.2.1988 cannot be relied
upon for contendinQ that the Administrator had delegated
the power of 'the appropriate Government' to the Adviser.
[Para 42] [1151-B-E]
1.3. The issue deserves to be considered from
another angle. Whlle delegating the power, authority or
jurisdiction vested in him by or under any law, rules or
regulations as applicable to the Union Territory of
E Chandigarh, the Administrator had used the expression
'on the date of this notification'. This necessarily lmplles
that the power of 'the appropriate Government' conferred
upon or entrusted to the Administrator by the President
under Article 239(1) after 25.2.1988 were not delegated to
F the Adviser. It Is also apposite to note that Notification
dated 14.8.1989 was Issued under Article 239(1) In
supersesslon of all previous notifications relating to the
exercise of power and· functions under the Act by the
Administrators of various Union Territories. Therefore,
G even If It Is assumed that vlde Notification dated 25.2.1988
the Administrator had authorised the Adviser to exercise
the power of 'the appropriate Government' under the Act,
after the Issuance of Notification dated 14.8.1989, the said
delegation wlll be deemed to have ceased Insofar as the
H exercise of power of 'the appropriate Government' under
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1081
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
the Act and the Rules framed thereunder is concerned
A
and in the absence of fresh delegation by the
Administrator, the Adviser could not have exercised the
power of the appropriate Government and sanctioned the
acquisition of land for the purposes specified in
Notifications dated 26.6.2006 and 2.8.2006 nor could he
B
symbolically accept the recommendations of the LAO
and record his satisfaction on the issue of need of land
for the specified public purposes. [Para 43] [1151-E-H;
1152-A-C]
1.4. The Adviser to the Administrator was not c
competent to accord approval to the initiation of the
acquisition proceedings or take decision on the reports
submitted by the LAO under Section 5-A (2) of the Act and
record his satisfaction that the land was needed for the
D
specified public purpose. [Para 44] [1152-C-D]
2.1. A cursory reading of the reports of the LAO may
give an Impression that he had applied mind to the
objections filed under Section 5A(1) and assigned
reasons for not entertaining the same, but a careful
E
analysis thereof leaves no doubt that the officer
concerned had not at all applied mind to the objections
of the landowners and merely created a facade of doing
so. In both the reports, the LAO had made a misleading
and false statement about his having seen the revenue
F
records and conducted spot Inspection. That apart, the
reports do not contain any Iota of consideration of the
objections filed by the landowners. Mere reproduction of
the substance of the objections cannot be equated with
objective consideration thereof In the light of the G
submission made by the objectors during the course of
hearing. Thus, the violation of the mandate of Section
5A(2) Is writ large on the face of the reports prepared by
the LAO. The reason why the LAO did not apply his mind
to the objections filed by the appellants and other H
1082
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012) 12 S.C.R.
A landowners is obvious. He was a minion in the hierarchy
of the administration of the Union Territory of Chandigarh
and could not have even thought of making
recommendations contrary to what was contained in the
letter sent by the Administrator. If he had shown the
B courage
of
acting
independently
and
made
recommendation against the acquisition of land, he
would have surely been shifted from that post and his
career would have been jeopardized. Therefore, the LAO
cannot be blamed for having acted as an obedient
C subordinate of the superior authorities, including the
Administrator. However, that cannot be a legitimate
ground to approve the reports prepared by him without
even a semblance of consideration of the objections filed
by the appellants and other landowners and thus it is
D held that the LAO failed to discharge the statutory duty
cast upon him to prepare a report after objectively
considering the objections filed under Section 5A(1) and
submissions made by the objectors during the course of
personal hearing. [Paras 45, 46, 47] (1152-F-G; 1153-C-G;
E 1154-A-C]
2.2. The Special Secretary, Finance and the Adviser
to the Administrator also failed to act in consonance with
the mandate of Section 5A(2) read with Section 6(1). They
F could not muster courage of expressing an independent
opinion on the issue of compliance of Section SA and
need of the land for the specified public purposes. The
noting recorded by the Special Secretary, Finance shows
that the officer had virtually reproduced what the
G Administrator had mentioned in his letter dated 31.7.2006.
The Adviser went a step further. He merely appended his
signatures on the note recorded by the Special Secretary,
Finance forgetting that in terms of the aforementioned
two sections 'the appropriate Government' is required to
H take decision after considering the report of the LAO. The
SURI ND ER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1083
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
least which can be said about the manner in which the
A
Adviser approved the note prepared by the Special
Secretary, Finance is that there was abject failure on the
part of the concerned officer to discharge his duty
despite the fact that he was entrusted with the onerous
task of taking a decision on behalf of 'the appropriate
B
Government' after considering the reports of the LAO. The
casual manner in which the senior o'fficers of the
Chandigarh Administration dealt with the serious issue
of the acquisition of land of citizens signifies their total
lack of respect for the constitutional provision contained
C
in Article 300A, the law enacted by Parliament, that is, the
Act and interpretation thereof by the Courts. It seems that
the officers were overawed by the view expressed by the
Administrator and the instinct of self-preservation
prompted them not to go against the wishes of the D
Administrator who wanted that additional land be
acquired in the name of expansion of IT Park despite the
fact that a substantial portion of the land acquired for
Phase II had been allotted to a private developer. [Para
48] [1154-C-H; 1155-A-B]
E
F
2.3. The hearing required to be given under Section
5A(2) to a person who is sought to be deprived of his land
and who has filed objections under Section 5A(1) must be
effective and not an empty formality. The Collector who is
enjoined with the task of hearing the objectors has the
freedom of making further enquiry as he may think
necessary. In either eventuality, he has to make report in
respect of the land notifi2d under Section 4(1) or make
different reports in respect of different parcels of such land
G
to the appropriate Government containing his
recommendations on the objections and submit the same
to the appropriate Government along with the record of
proceedings held by him for the latter's decision. The
appropriate Government is obliged to consider the report,
H
1084
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2012] 12 S.C.R.
A if any, made under Section 5A(2) and then record its
satisfaction that the particular land is needed for a public
purpose. This exercise culminates into making a
declaration that the land is needed for a public purpose
and the declaration is to be signed by a Secretary to the
B Government or some other officer duly authorised to certify
its orders. The formation of opinion on the issue of need
of land for a p'ublic purpose and suitability thereof is sine
qua non for issue of a declaration under Section 6(1). Any
violation of the substantive right of the landowners and/
C or other interested persons to file objections or denial of
opportunity of personal hearing to the objector(s) vitiates
the recommendations made by the Collector and the
decision taken by the appropriate Government on such
recommendations. The recommendations made by the
o Collector without duly considering th.e objections filed
under Section 5A(1) and submissions made at the hearing
given under Section 5A(2) or failure of the appropriate
Government to take objective decision on such objections
In the light of the recommendations made by the Collector
E will denude the decision of the appropriate Government
of statutory finality. To put It differently, the satisfaction
recorded by the appropriate Government that the particular
land is needed for a public purpose and the declaration
made under Section 6(1) wlll be devoid of legal sanctity If
F statutorily engrafted procedural safeguards are not
adhered to by the concerned authorities or there ls violatlon
of the prlnclples of natural justice. The cases herein are
illustrative of flagrant violation of the mandate of Sections
5A(2) and 6(1 ). [Para 58] [1163-E-H; 1154-A·F]
G
2.4. The satisfaction of the appropriate Government
envisaged In Section 6(1) must be preceded by
consideration of the report prepared by the Collector after
considering the objections filed under Section 5A and
H hearing the objectors. This necessarily Implies that the
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1085
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Government must objectively apply its mind to the report
A
of the Collector and the objections filed by the
landowners and then take a decision whether or not the
land is needed for the specified public purpose. A
mechanical endorsement of the report of the Collector
cannot be a substitute for the requirement of application
B
of mind by the Government which must be clearly
reflected in the record. [Para 61] [1168-F-H; 1169-A]
Nandeshwar Prasad and Anr. v. The State of Uttar
Pradesh and Ors. (1964) 3 SCR 425; State of Punjab v. c
Gurdial Singh (1980) 2 sec 471: 1980 (1) SCR 1011;
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur
Chenai (2005) 7 sec 627: 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 388;
Somawanti v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 151: 1963 SCR
774 and Ganga Bishnu Swaika v. Calcutta Pinjrapole Society D
AIR 1968 SC 615: 1968 SCR 117 - relied on.
Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1975) 4 SCC 285: 1975
(1) SCR 802; Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v.
State of Rajasthan (1993) 2 SCC 662: 1993 (2) SCR 788;
E
State of T.N. v. L. Krishnan (1996) 1 SCC 250: 1995 (4)
Suppl. SCR 663; Ajay Krishan Shinghal v. Union of India
(1996) 10 SCC 721: 1996 (4) Suppl. SCR 319; Sooraram
Pratap Reddy v. District Collector, Ranga Reddy. District
(2008) 9 SCC 552: 2008 (13) SCR 126 and Munshi Singh
F
v. Union of India (1973) 2 SCC 337: 1973 (1) SCR 973 -
referred to.
3. A reading of the declaratlons issued under Section
6(1) makes it clear that the authority issuing the same was
totally unmlndful of the requirement of the statute. This
G
could be the only reason why Instead of recording
satisfaction of the appropriate Government that the land
Is needed for a publlc purpose, the notification uses the
expressions "appears to the Administrator" and "likely to
be needed". This only adds to the casualness with
H
1086
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 12 S.C.R.
A which the entire issue of acquisition has been dealt with
by the higher functionaries of the Chandigarh
Administration. [Para 62] [1169-8-C]
4. The High Court has not examined the substantive
8 grounds on which the appellants had challenged the
acquisition of their land with the required seriousness and
failed to notice that the LAO had not at all considered
several objections including those relating to adverse
impact on the environment and ecology of the area raised
c by the landowners and mechanically recommended the
acquisition of land notified under Section 4(1 ), that the
reports of the LAO were not placed before the competent
authority and that even the Advisor had not objectively
considered the reports of the LAO in the light of the
0 objections filed under Section 5A(1) and simply appended
his signatures on the note prepared by the Secretary
(Finance). This omission on the High Court's part has
resulted in miscarriage of justice. [Para 63] [1169-D-F]
5. In the result, the Notifications dated 26.6.2006,
E 2.8.2006 and 28.2.2007 issued by the Chandigarh
Administration under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act are
quashed. [Para 65] [1170-A-B]
Case Law Reference:
F
1975 (1) SCR 802
referred to
Para 26
1993 (2) SCR 788
referred to
Para 26
1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 663 referred to
Para 26
G
1996 (4) Suppl. SCR 319 referred to
Para 26
2008 (13) SCR 126
referred to
Para 26
1963 SCR 774
relied on
Para 26
H
1968 SCR 117
relied on
Para 26
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1087
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(1964) 3 SCR 425
1973. (1) SCR 973
1980 (1) SCR 1071
relied on
referred to
relied on
Para 55
A
Para 55
Para 56
2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 388 relied on
Para 57
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
7454-7459 of 2012.
B
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.03.2011 of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP Nos.
C
5065 of 2007, 6077 of 2008, 11250 of 2007, 5840 of 2008,
9039 of 2007 and 5384 of 2007.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 7460-7463, 7464, 7465, 7466, 7467, 7468, 7469,
D
7470, 7471, 7472, 7473, 7474-7475, 7476, 7477, 7478, 7479,
7480, 7481, 7482, 7483, 7484-7485, 7486, 7487 and 7489
of 2012.
Rakesh Khanna, ASG, Rakesh Dwivedi, Dinesh Dwivedi,
Neeraj Kumar Jain, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, T.S. Doabia, T.
E
Srinivasa Murthy, Senthil Jagadeesan, Pankhuri Bhardwaj,
Sansriti Pathak, S. Janani, Prateek Dwivedi, Sanjay Singh,
Ugra Shankar Prasad, D.M. Nargolkar, Anil K. Jha, Chhaya
Kumari, Alka Jha, Naresh Bakshi, Shish Pal Laler, N.P. Midha,
Balbir Singh G:.ipta, R.C. Kaushik, Shree Pal Singh, Mohit
F
Chaudhary, Puja Sharma, Jyoti Mendiratta, A.V. Palli, Rekha
Palli, Anupam Raina, Aman Singh Rahi, Rajeev Kr. Singh, Rajiv
Kataria, Debjani Das P., Maninder Singh, Sermon Rawat,
Aekta Vats, Riju Raj Jamwal, Madhusmita Bora, Kiran
Bhardwaj, Shailendra Sharma, Sudhir Walia, Varsh Juneja,
G
Niharika Ahluwalia, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Rekha Pandey,
Sadhana Sandhu, D.S. Mahra, Udita Singh, Ravi Prakash, LR.
Singh, Subhasis Bhowmick for the Appearing Parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
1088
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 12 S.C.R.
A
G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Chandigarh, which is known all over the world as 'the
City Beautiful', was planned by French Architect Monsieur Le
Corbusier. The plan prepared by Le Corbusier in collaboration
8 with two other architects, namely, Maxwell Fry and Jane Drew
envisaged division of the city of Chandigarh into residential
sectors with provision for markets, educational institutions,
hospitals and other facilities.
3. After finalisation of the plan, the Government of Punjab
C acquired land of various villages for establishing Chandigarh
as the new capital of the State and also constituted various
committees including Land Scape Committee for implementing
the plan. In the meeting of the Land Scape Committee held on
3.9.1954, the Divisional Forest Officer, Rupar (now Ropar)
D suggested that the land lying along the right bank of Sukhna
Choe and the left bank of Patiala Ki Rao where plantation had
been started by the Forest Department should be declared as
reserved forest under Section 4 of the Punjab Land
Preservation Act, 1900. This was approved by the Land Scape
E Committee, and Chief Engineer, P.W.D. was asked to furnish
the details of the area. On receipt of necessary details of khasra
numbers together with the plan of the area, which included
residential and commercial plots, preliminary notification under
Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was issued by the
F State Government on 28.2.1956 and final notification under
Section 20 of that Act was issued on 3.2.1961 declaring
6724.19 acres land including about 6000 acres land which had
already been utilised for construction of the first phase of
Chandigarh, and about 280 acres land falling in the revenue
G estates of village Hallo Majra and village Dalheri Rajputan as
reserved forest. The State Government also acquired hilly area
measuring 6172.09 acres of Sukhna lake catchment during
1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64 for carrying out soil
conservation works to reduce the silt in-flow into the lake. The
H
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1089
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Forest Department acquired 536.64 acres of land of various
A
villages along Sukhna Choe during 1963-64 to carry out soil
conservation and other improvemental works.
4. In 1966, the State of Punjab was reorganised under the
Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (for short, 'the 1966 Act')
B
leading to the creation of the new State of Haryana and the
Union Territory of Chandigarh and transfer of some territories
to State of Himachal Pradesh. With this, 6706 acres land out
of 6724.19 acres land declared as reserved forest vide
notification dated 3.2.1961 was transferred to the Union c
Territory of Chandigarh and 6127.09 acres of land constituting
hilly catchment came to vest in the Central Government by virtue
of Section 48(5) of the 1966 Act.
5. With the passage of time, Chandigarh became an
important destination for education and attracted students from
D
all over the country. However, the employment opportunities
available in the city did not match the educational facilities and
this resulted in exodus of talent from Chandigarh to other cities.
In the beginning of 21st Century the Chandigarh Administration
took steps to provide various incentives including allotment of
E
land to the entr~preneurs desirous of setting up industries in
the field of information technology because that was expected
to generate huge employment. In the first instance, the
Administration decided that 111 acres land, which had been
F
acquired between 1950 and 1977 and was lying vacant, may
be utilised for establishing a world class Information Tech·nology
Park in the name of Late Prime Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi (for
short, 'the IT Park'). This area was designated as Phase-I of
the IT Park and the plots were allotted to the following:
G
H
m
Date of
~.No.
Name of Companies
Plot No.
Allotment
11.06.2004,
1
Infosys
1
10.11.2005
Non-SEZ
Built to Suit Sites
Date of
$.No.
Name of Comnanies
Plot No.
Allotment
1
Alchemist Ltd.
02.01.2006
F-5
2
Amadeus
B-11
07.12.2005
3
Bebo Tcchnolo2ies Ltd.
D-3
27.12.2006
4
Compact Disc India
13
20.4 2009
Damco Solutions Ltd.
13-A
16.8.2009
5
6
FCS Software Solutions Ltd.
29.12.2005
J-7
7
IDS Infotech Ltd.
2.l.2006
1-8
8
Karin Informatics Services Ltd.
14
01.06.2006
9
Microtek International Pvt. Ltd.
A-12
02.01 2006
10
Netsmartz Tnfotech (1) Pvt. Ltd.
07.08.2006
E-10
11
Net Solutions
05.06.2006
15
12
PCC Technology Group
'17.03 2009
C-4
13
RT Outsourcing Services Ltd.
12.06 2006
16
14
Second Foundation Inc.
G-9
15 12 2005
Virsa Systems
H-<;
28 12.2005
15
16
DLF Infocitv Dcvelooers Ltd.
2
23.12.2003
0
CJ
"/oage starus
Present Status·
ofbuildin2
nn.-rational
100
Status of Ooeration
Structure completed, expected to complete by Sep' 11
70
Structure comnleted, exnected to comolete bv Seo' 11
80
Eseavatioo done, ex
cted to comolete hv S..n' l l
30
Zoning titan issued, drawin.,. .. will be submitted shortly
0
Zoning plan issued, drawings will be submitted shortly
0
GrQnnd & First Floor operational
100
Escavation is on, expected to complete by Sep' 11
50
A
lied for oartial comoletion
100
Structure comoleted, i:xoectcd to complete by Sep' 11
85
Applied for partial completion
100
Structure completed, expected to complete by Sep' 11
80
Letter of Allotment yet to he issued
0
Building is complete & Ground Floor is operational
100
Structure completed, expected to coffiplete bv Sen' 11
95
Structure completed, expected to complete by Sep' l l
80
Already • Jnerational since Sep' 05
100
)>
Sil.:~ of land
30.21
fin Acres)
Size of land
1.3
1.4 l
l.01
0.996
0.9
1.65
l.32
1.5
1.46
1.76
1.6
I.I
1.5
1.48
1.3
12.5
.....
0 co
0
en
c
"'U
:;a
m
s::
m
(")
0 c
:;a
-I
:;a
m
"'U
0
~
'N
0 .....
~
.....
N
en
(")
;:o
<(
u
0
w
u.
......
"t:I
Q)
O>
-~ .5
0 ......
::::J c:
::>
CT 0
ou-:'"
ra "O
1--,
lh Q)
ra ::::
W-
:: .Q
">
~ :r:
"t:I ra ~
c:
w (!)
..!!!
~..Q
enZ
lh ~2
o:: en
!!! lh c:
w.
0 -
Q)
r. Cl.!
ra .Q >
1-(!)
r-- a. ·a,
o~ CD
Q) !!!
oen
N .c:
~ - ra
z 0:::
Q) "O .c:
<(0
> c: .2
0
ra
0::: 0
...,.
.c:
-"' ::
.:( z
.0 ~
0:: <(
0
ra -
N a... 0
al<(
'
-~
0 I-
:r: 0
0
<!>z
0
Q) ~
zN
.C: Q)
-u.
c: -
"O
eno
Q) -
Q)
<Uo.c:
0::: z
~.-:
WO
Q)
Q) lh
o_ co ~ -~
zz
CD .c: -
0:: ::::>
0... gi
:::J
~ "O
en
.!:! .5
-
SEZ
Phase II
Main Camnus Site
(in Acres)
Date of
S.No.
Name ofComnanies
Plot No.
Allotment
Status ofOoeration
Size of land
1
Winro Technolo11ies Ltd.
27
Resumed
Resumed
0
30 •
Camnus Sites
in Acres}
Date of
S.No.
Name of Co,.,."'anies
Plot No.
Allotment
Status of Oneration
Size of land
I
Tech Mahindra Ltd.
22-23
26.05.2006
11nPrational since Oct'09
100
15
Built to Suit Sites
(in Acres)
Date of
S.No.
Name of Comnanies
Plot No.
Allotment
Status of Oneration
Size of land
I
22nd Cen .. ·-· Te<::hnolooies Inc.
25-C
08.05.2008
· Allotment awaited
0
0.67
2
KMG Infotech Pvt. Ltd.
25-A
05.04.2009
Allotment done, vet to submit drawin11s
0
I.I
3
Ramtech Software Solutions
26-A
12.03.2009
Drawinl!s of nrooosed buildinP" submitted
0
0.52
4
Silicon Vallev Svstech Inc.
25-D
05.05.2008
SEZ aooroval awaited
0
0.67
5
Rolta India Ltd.
25-D
Resumed
0
2.98
NonMSFZ
Camnus Site ·
(in Ai:resl
Date of
S.No.
Name ofCo-~anies
Pim No.
Allotment
Status ofOoeration
Sire of land
I
Bharti Airtel Ltd. ·
21
05.06.2006
~rational s!nce Aue:'09
100
5
2
e-Svs Techno!Ouies Ltd.
21
Under litiuation
0
6
1092
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 12 S.C.R.
A
7. The land allotted to Wipro Technologies Ltd. (30 acres),
Rolla India Ltd. (2.98 acres) and e-Sys Technologies Ltd. (6
acres) was subsequently resumed because they failed to set
up their units.
B
8. Out of the remaining land of Phase-II, 135 acres was
transferred to the Chandigarh Housing Board (for short, 'the
Board') vide order dated 15.11.2005/1.12.2005 issued by the
Finance Secretary, Chandigarh Administration for development
of residential and other infrastructural facilities in the IT Park.
The relevant portions of that order are extracted below:
c
D
E
F
G
H
"1.
The Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh-, is
pleased to order to the transfer of 135 acres of land
in the Chandigarh Technology Park at Kishangarh
in favour of the Chandigarh Housing Board,
Chandigarh, on free hold basis, for the execution
of the project of development and residential and
other infrastructural facilities in the said park. The
price of the land, details of the land use and other
terms and conditions of transfer of this land will be
decided later on.
2.
The Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh is
further pleased to designate the Chandigarh
Housing Board, Chandigarh as the Nodal Agency
for executing the aforesaid project by engaging SBI
Caps as consultants who would help fine tune the
financial package, as also prepare the old
document.
3.
Broad guidelines are spelt out hereunder:-
1.
The whole exercise would involve a joint
venture with the private party through an
agreement, but without creating a· joint
venture company.
II.
No capital expenditure would be involved on
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1093
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
the part of the Chandigarh Administration.
A
Ill.
The building and sale of all property would be
left to the private party but all money will be
received in the first instant by the Chandigarh
Housing Board so that there is no under
B
reporting of gross revenues.
4. The Chandigarh Housing Board will complete the
process preliminary to the inviting of bids in 12 weeks or so
and complete the work construction of the building within a
period of 18 months or so."
C
9. Though, the ostensible object of transferring land to the
Board was development of residential and other infrastructural
facilities in the IT Park, the real purpose was to benefit the
private developers and this became evident from the decision
D
taken in the meeting of the officers of the Chandigarh
Administration held on 30.3.2006. Paragraphs 1(a), 8 and 9
of the minutes of that meeting are reproduced below:
"1.
Land Allotment.
E
(a)
The entire l~nd including land under
commercial will be allotted to CHB on free
hold basis, however CHB will transfer the
land under commercial use on lease hold
basis as per the prevalent policy of
F
Chandigarh Administration.
8.
Modalities of disposal of service/studio
apartments and commercial property
The service/studio apartments and the commercial
F
property shall be transferred to the developer on
lease hold basis. The developer would be quoting
and paying to CHB one time cost of the service I
. studio apartments and the commercial property.
30% share will not be taken of the subsequent
H
A
B
1094
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2012] 12 S.C.R.
9.
revenues from these two properties.
10% Reservation for allotment to
1 .• T.
professionals.
10% dwelling units may be allowed to be purchased
by l.T. companies established in Chandigarh or its
employees. The detailed modalities will be worked
out by CHB separately."
10. In furtherance of the aforesaid decision, the Board
c invited bids for disposal of the land. M/s Parsvnath Developers
Limited, who gave the bid of Rs.821.21 crores was allotted
123. 79 acres land. However, after issuing a glamorous
advertisement with the title Parsvnath - PRIDE ASIA,
Chandigarh (An Address for Aristocratic Living) to attract
D prospective buyers of residential and commercial properties,
Mis Parsvnath Developers appears to have abandoned the
project and raised certain disputes which are pending before
the arbitrator.
11. Soon after transfer of almost half of the land acquired
E for Phase-II to a private developer, Land Acquisition Officer,
Union Territory, Chandigarh (hereinafter described as, 'the
LAO') sent Memo No. Teh.(LA)/LA0/2005/37365 dated
15.12.2005 to the Director, Information Technology, Chandigarh
with reference to some meeting held on 9.12.2005 under the
F Chairmanship of the Finance Secretary-cum-Secretary
Information Technology, Chandigarh and asked him to provide
the drawing of 50 acres land adjoining the IT Park for facilitating
its acquisition. That memo reads under:
G
H
"From
To
The Land Acquisition Officer,
UT, Chandigarh.
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1095
UNION OF INDIAAND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.)
The Director Information Technology,
Chandigarh Administration,
Chandigarh.
Memo No. Teh (LA)/LA0/2005/37366
Dated,
Chandigarh, the 15/12/05
Subject : Acquisition of land in Village Manimajra for
znd phase of 1.T. Park.
A
B
This refers to minutes of the meeting held on
09.12.2005 under the chairmanship of Sh. S.K. Sandhu,
C
Finance Secretary/Secretary Information Technology,
Chandigarh Administration, wherein it was emphasized to
acquire 50 acres of land adjoining to the present l.T. Park
in Kishangarh (Manimajra) for construction of 2nd phase
of IT. Park.
You are, therefore, requested to provide drawing of
the land required to be acquired so that further action to
acquire the land is initiated.
Sd/-
Land Acquisition Officer,
UT, Chandigarh."
D
E
12. The aforesaid memo sent by the LAO was clearly
misleading because in the meeting held on 9.12.2005 no
decision was taken for the acquisition of 50 acres land
F
adjoining the IT Park. This is evinced from the contents of the
minutes of the meeting held on 9.12.2005, which are
reproduced below:
"Minutes of the meeting held on 9.12.2005 under the
G
Chairmanship of Sh. S.K. Sandhu, Finance Secretary/
Secretary Information Technology, Chandigarh
Administration.
A meeting was held under the Chairmanship of Sh. S.K.
H
Sandhu. Finance Secretary/Secretary Information
1096
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 12 S.C.R.
Technology to review the progress of development of the
A
first & second phases of Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh
Technology Park. The following officers were present :-
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
1. Smt. Renu Saigal, Chief Architect
2. Sh. V.K. Bhardwaj, Chief Engineer
3. Sh. Wazeer Singh Goyat, Land Acquisition Officer
4. Sh. Vivek Atray, Director Information Technology
5. Sh. N.S. Brar, Assistant Estate Officer.
6. Dr. Sanjay Tyagi, Director STPI Mohali.
7. Sh. M.L Arora, Senior Town Planner
8. Sh. Vaibhav Mittal, Promotion & Information Officer
The following decisions were taken:-
1. It was decided that the infrastructure development for
the second phase consisting of 120 acres for l.T. services
and 130 acres for non IT service may be taken up by the
Engineering Department as per the lay out plan prepared
by the Urban Planning Department.
2. It was decided to start the work of construction of the
internal road which leads to Build to Suit Sites at CTP
Phase-1 on an urgent basis. The road next to Infosys is to
be shifted as already urgently.
3. It was decided that the Build to Suit Sites which have
already been allotted would be formally handed over to the
allottees and their construction may begin by next month.
4. It was also decided that the power line in the entire area
comprising CTP Phase-I and Phase-II may be shifted
underground along the roads.
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1097
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
5. Five new Build to Suit Sites have also been earmarked
A
as per the plan in the CTP Phase-I. This plan was
approved.
6. Regarding land scaping it was decided that Chief
Architect UT, Chief Engineer UT and Director Information
B
Technology will decide the final plan from the 3 plans
received from Chandigarh College of Architecture.
7. The Porta Structure for the Reception/Help Desk would
be set up by CE/UT immediately.
8. It was decided to close the access from Mansa Devi
side & from Indira Colony urgently.
9. Zoning of the Build to Suit Sites would be Finalized by
12.12.2005.
Meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the chair.
(S.K.Sandhu)
FS/SIT"
c
D
13. The Director, Information Technology sent DO No. 107
E
dated 12.1.2006 to the LAO and requested him to take action
as per the minutes of the meeting held on 9.12.2005. In turn,
the LAO sent DO No.1294-95 dated 16.01.2006 to the Director
and reiterated the instructions contained in memo dated
15.12.2005. After4 days, he sent letter dated 16.1.2006 to the
F
Finance Secretary in the context of some meeting held on
4.1.2006 and pointed out that 280 acres land including 50 acres
land already decided to be acquired for IT Park was available
for acquisition. That letter reads as under:
"From
The Land Acquisition Officer,
UT, Chandigarh
To,
G
H
1098
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 12 S.C.R.
A
The Finance Secretary,
Chandigarh Administration,
Chandigarh.
Memo No. Kgo (LA)/LA0/2006/1296
8
Dated, Chandigarh, the 16/1/06
c
D
E
F
G
H
Subject: Acquisition of remaining land in Village Manimajra,
T, Chandigarh. DThis refers to the minutes of the
eeting held on 29.12.2005 under the chairmanship
of the Finance Secretary-cum-Secretary, lnformat
on Technology, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh,
wherein it was decided to acquire 50 acres of land
adjoining to the present l.T. Park in village Kishangarh
(Manimajra) for construction of 2nd phase of l.T. Park.
Accordingly, the Director Information Technology, UT,
Chandigarh, vide this office Memo No.37365 dated
15.12.2005 was requested to provide drawing of the land
required to be acquired so that further action is initiated,
but no communication has been received till date.
Subsequently, in a meeting held on 04.01.2006, it was
desired to acquire the land of Village Manimajra as
maximum as can be. Accordingly, an intensive survey of
the area has been got conducted, according to which it
has been found that 280 acres of land in Village Manimajra
is available for acquisition. It is clarified here that this 280
acres include 50 acres of land already decided to be
acquired for l.T. Park. However, there are about 275
structures in the shape of small houses in the locality called
'Shastri Nagar', 32 Farm-houses, 2 Nurseries and 2
Poultry-farms. The proposed land to be acquired has been
shown on the map enclosed herewith.
If this land is decided to be acquired, a sum of Rs. 165
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1099
UNION OF INDIAAND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
crores (approximately) would be required on account of A
compensation for land and trees/structures. It is pertinent
to mention here that the farm-houses, in fact, are orchards
having costly fruit-bearing trees, hence compensation of
these fruit-bearing trees would be invariably very high.
8
You are, therefore, requested to convey the decision on
the aforesaid proposal.
Land Acquisition Officer
UT, Chandigarh.
Dated: 16/1/06"
C
14. Since, there was some confusion about the date of the
meeting mentioned in the first line of the aforementioned letter,
Dr Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel for the Union
Territory of Chandigarh gave an assurance on 6.9.2012, i.e.,
D
the date on which the order was reserved, that the relevant
minutes will be handed over to the Court Master. Thereafter,
Shri S. K. Setia, Joint Secretary (Estates), Chandigarh
Administration filed affidavit dated 10.9.2012, paragraph 4
whereof reads as under:
"4. That in response to courts query, the deponent
respectfully submi~s as under:
E
There was no meeting held on 29.12.2005. This is a
typographical error in the letter dated 16.01.2006. The
F
correct date of the meeting is 09.12.2005. This is self
evident from various letters on the original file which refer
to 09.12.2005 which are explained and annexed below.
There was a meeting held on 04.01.2006, which was
attended by Land Acquisition Officer; Director, IT and Jt.
G
Secretary (Finance). However, no minutes were recorded
for that meeting, which is referred to in the letter dated
16.01.2006 .•
15.