Delhi HC: Woman's Right to a Shared Household Does Not Allow Indefinite Occupation of In-Laws' Home  ||  Delhi HC: Director Disputes in a Company Do Not Qualify as Genuine Hardship to Delay ITR Filing  ||  Delhi HC: ECI Cannot Resolve Internal Disputes of Unrecognised Parties; Civil Court Must Decide  ||  Bombay High Court: Senior Citizens Act Cannot be Misused to Summarily Evict a Son  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Service Tax Refund Can't Be Denied on Limitation When Payment Was Made During Probe  ||  Supreme Court: If Tribunal Ends Case For Unpaid Fees, Parties Must Seek Recall Before Using S.14(2)  ||  SC: Article 226 Writs Jurisdiction Cannot be Used to Challenge Economic or Fiscal Reforms  ||  Supreme Court: Hostile Witness Testimony Can't Be Discarded; Consistent Parts Remain Valid  ||  Supreme Court: GPF Nomination in Favour of a Parent Becomes Invalid Once the Employee Marries  ||  Supreme Court: Candidate Not Disqualified if Core Subject Studied Without Exact Degree Title    

Uddar Gagan Properties Ltd. v. Sant Singh and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (13 May 2016)

“Profiteering” found in HUDA-private developer transaction

MANU/SC/0590/2016

Land Acquisition

An authority acquiring land under the guise of public purpose, but subsequently passing it on to a private builder amounts to acquisition for a private purpose, the Supreme Court held.

The court quashed Haryana Urban Development Authority’s transfer of publicly acquired land to a private builder. Terming the transaction “fraudulent” and “clandestine”, the court the found the same to be “profiteering at the cost of livelihood and existence of a farmer”.

While the judges concurred with the High Court’s earlier ruling which found abuse of power in the matter, they opined instead that the entirety of the acquisition need not be quashed. Transfer of land by HUDA in favour of the builder was cancelled. Sale compensation paid by the builder to land owners will serve as compensation, who will also not be required to refund any amount.

The land in questions was acquired for commercial and residential development as Sectors 27-28 in Rohtak, Haryana. Over 400 acres of farmland was acquired by HUDA and subsequently transferred to Uddar Gagan Properties, the builder-developer.

Relevant : State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh MANU/SC/0019/1952 Bangalore City Cooperative v. The State of Karnataka MANU/SC/0091/2012 Mahavir and Anr. v. Rural Institute, Amravati and Anr. MANU/SC/0763/1995

Tags : LAND ACQUISITION   FRAUD   HUDA   PRIVATE USE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved