Calcutta HC: Award May Be Set Aside if Tribunal Rewrites Contract or Ignores Key Clauses  ||  Delhi HC Suspends Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s Life Term, Holding Section 5(C) of POCSO Not Made Out  ||  Calcutta High Court: Arbitration Clause in an Expired Lease Cannot be Invoked For a Fresh Lease  ||  Delhi High Court: 120-Day Timeline under Section 132B Of Income Tax Act is Not Mandatory  ||  NCLAT Reaffirms That Borrower's Debt Acknowledgment Also Extends Limitation Period for Guarantors  ||  NCLAT: Oppression & Mismanagement Petition Cannot Be Filed Without Company Membership on Filing Date  ||  Supreme Court Quashes Rajasthan Village Renaming, Says Government Must Follow its Own Policy  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Can Order Forensic Audit on its Own, No Separate Application Required  ||  NCLAT Reiterates That IBC Cannot be Invoked as a Recovery Tool for Contractual Disputes  ||  Delhi HC: DRI or Central Revenues Control Lab Presence in Delhi Alone Does Not Confer Jurisdiction    

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