The judgment in Kishore Chabbra vs State of Haryana passed in April 2025 marked a significant, if not final, stage in a land acquisition dispute that had been ongoing for over three decades. Land acquisition is a sensitive topic in India that involves issues of development, displacement, and compensation. Kishore Chabbra v. State of Haryana 2025 highlights the Supreme Court's discretionary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do "complete justice." Despite finding no legal grounds to release the land, the Court invoked this power to direct compensation under the 2013 Act. Discover more in-depth analyses of important Supreme Court decisions by exploring Recent Judgements of Supreme Court.

Kishore Chhabra vs The State of Haryana (2025) Introduction

The case of Kishore Chabbra vs State of Haryana 2025 involves an appeal brought before the Supreme Court of India challenging a decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court had earlier dismissed a writ petition filed by the appellant, Kishore Chabbra, who sought the release of his land from acquisition proceedings initiated by the State of Haryana. The appellant's primary contention in Kishore Chabbra v. State of Haryana 2025 was against a State Government order dated 17.08.2010, which had rejected his request for the release of his land. This appeal to the Supreme Court represents the culmination of the appellant's efforts to save his land and constructed property in Sultanpur, Sonipat, Haryana, from being acquired by the State for planned urban development.

Download Kishore Chhabra vs The State of Haryana (2025) PDF

Kishore Chhabra vs The State of Haryana case began with the State of Haryana's decision to acquire a substantial area of land in Sultanpur, Sonipat, for the purpose of planned development. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LAA): Dated 09.11.1992, this notification initiated the acquisition process for the development and utilization of land for residential and commercial areas, along with sector roads, in Sonipat.

• Appellant's Land and Construction: The appellant is the owner of land and a constructed area where he claimed a running factory had existed since 1970, predating the acquisition notification
• Notification under Section 6 of the LAA: Issued on 06.11.1993, this notification declared the State Government's intention to acquire a total area of 329.70 acres, which included the appellant's land situated in Sultanpur, Sonipat.
• Award No. 10: Passed on 05.11.1995, this determined the compensation for the acquired land.
• Taking of Possession: The State claimed that possession of the acquired land, including the appellant's, was taken on the same day as the award, 05.11.1995, as recorded in Rapat Roznamcha No. 229, and subsequently vested with the Government.
• Appellant's Objections: The appellant asserted that he had submitted objections under Section 5-A of the LAA, although the State disputed this.
• Previous Legal Challenges: This was the third writ petition filed by the appellant.
  • The first writ petition challenged the acquisition proceedings themselves and was dismissed.
  • The second writ petition, filed in 2008, was withdrawn by the appellant as his representation for the release of his land was pending before the State Government.
• State Government's Rejection Order: On 17.08.2010, the State Government issued an order rejecting the appellant's request for the release of his land.
• High Court's Dismissal: The appellant then filed the third writ petition challenging this rejection order. The High Court dismissed this petition, primarily on the ground that possession of the land was deemed to have been taken, and the appellant's continued physical possession did not confer any legal rights.

Arguments of the Appellant

The appellant's plea in Kishore Chabbra vs State of Haryana 2025 for release was based on three main arguments:

1. Discrimination: The appellant in Kishore Chabbra v. State of Haryana 2025 argued that his land was similarly situated to other properties that were released from the same acquisition notification, both before and after the award. He contended that the State's refusal to release his land amounted to discriminatory treatment.
2. Policy Coverage: He asserted that his case fell under the State Government's policy dated 26.10.2007, which provided for the consideration of releasing land with pre-existing factories or commercial establishments.
3. Lack of Reasons in Rejection Order: He claimed that the State's rejection order of 17.08.2010 was unsustainable because it did not provide adequate reasons for the rejection.

Arguments of the Respondent

The State of Haryana in Kishore Chabbra vs State of Haryana 2025 countered these arguments by raising several points:

1. Delay and Laches: They argued that the appellant's writ petition was filed after a significant delay.
2. Possession Taken: The State maintained that since possession of the land had already been taken and vested with the government, its release was not legally permissible.
3. No Entitlement to Discrimination: The State argued that even if other lands were wrongly released, it did not create a legal right for the appellant, especially if his case did not fall under the applicable policies.
4. Prior Action & Res Judicata: The State pointed out that the appellant had previously claimed compensation under Section 9 of the LAA without seeking release, and argued that the principle of res judicata applied due to the dismissal or withdrawal of his previous writ petitions.
5. Lack of 5-A Objections: The State claimed that the appellant had not filed objections under Section 5-A of the LAA, suggesting a lack of initial opposition to the acquisition.
6. Lack of Change of Land Use (CLU): A key argument was that the appellant had not obtained a necessary Change of Land Use (CLU) certificate, which was a prerequisite for the existence of a valid factory or commercial establishment in the controlled area.

The Supreme Court, in Kishore Chabbra vs State of Haryana 2025 while considering the appeal, grappled with several key legal issues:

1. Did the State's decision to release some lands while refusing to release appellant's land constitute discriminatory treatment violating Article 14?
2. What was the legal consequence of the appellant's failure to obtain a valid CLU for his factory in a controlled area in Kishore Chabbra vs State of Haryana 2025? 
3. Given that possession was taken and the land vested with the government under the LAA, was the release of the land still legally permissible under Section 48?
4. Did the appellant's petition in Kishore Chabbra v. State of Haryana 2025 suffer from undue delay and laches warranting its dismissal?
5. Did the dismissal or withdrawal of the appellant's previous writ petitions bar the present petition under the principle of res judicata?
6. Was the State Government's rejection order dated 17.08.2010 justifiable and did it provide adequate and valid reasons for refusing the land release?
7. Did the unique facts of the case Kishore Chabbra vs State of Haryana 2025 warrant the exercise of the Supreme Court's extraordinary powers under Article 142 to ensure complete justice, especially concerning the compensation payable to the appellant?

Kishore Chhabra vs The State of Haryana (2025) Legal Provisions

The judgment in Kishore Chabbra vs State of Haryana 2025 primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

1.Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LAA): 

This Act, though repealed and replaced by the 2013 Act, governed the land acquisition process at the time of the acquisition of the land in dispute in Kishore Chabbra vs State of Haryana 2025 case.

• Section 4 of LAA: This section marks the beginning of the acquisition process, empowering the government to notify it's intention to acquire land for a public purpose.
• Section 5-A of LAA: This section gives landowners the right to file objections to the proposed acquisition. The Collector is required to hear these objections and submit a report to the government. The appellant in Kishore Chabbra vs State of Haryana 2025 claimed to have filed objections, though the State disputed this.
• Section 6: Following the consideration of the Section 5-A report (if any), the government issues a declaration under Section 6, formally announcing its intention to acquire the land. The 1993 notification under this section solidified the State's intention to acquire the 329.70 acres, including the appellant's land.
• Section 11: This section mandates the Collector to inquire into the value of the land and the claims of interested persons and to make an award determining the compensation. Award No. 10, passed in 1995, fixed the compensation for the acquired land.
• Section 16: This provision empowers the Collector to take possession of the land after the award is made, whereupon the land vests absolutely in the government, free from all encumbrances. The State in Kishore Chabbra vs State of Haryana 2025 heavily relied on the argument that possession was taken on 05.11.1995, making the release under Section 48(1) impermissible.
• Section 48(1) (Withdrawal from Acquisition): This section allows the government to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken.

2.The Indian Constitution 1950:

Article 14, Article 226 and Article 142 of Indian Constitution played an important role in Kishore Chhabra vs The State of Haryana. The following are the analysis of these provisions:

• Article 14 Constitution of India (Equality Before Law): The appellant's plea in Kishore Chabbra v. State of Haryana 2025 of discrimination rested on Article 14 of the Indian Constitution 1950, and that they have been subjected to discriminatory treatment as similar other lands of other people were released by the state government. The Court's analysis in Kishore Chabbra vs State of Haryana 2025 focused on whether the appellant's situation was indeed "similarly situated," considering the absence of a valid CLU.
• Article 226 Constitution of India (Writ Jurisdiction of High Courts): The appellant in Kishore Chabbra vs State of Haryana 2025 initially approached the High Court under Article 226 of Indian Constitution 1950, seeking judicial review of the State's actions and orders. The dismissal by the High Court led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
• Article 142 (Enforcement of Decrees and Orders of Supreme Court): Article 142 of Indian Constitution 1950 empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for "doing complete justice" in any case before it. The Court invoked this article to direct compensation under the 2013 Act despite not finding grounds for the release of the land.

3.Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975: 

While not explicitly detailed in the excerpts, this Act is the likely legislative basis for the declaration of the area around Sonipat as a "controlled area" and the consequent requirement for obtaining a Change of Land Use (CLU) for any development activities.

4.Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: 

Although this Act came into force after the acquisition process was substantially completed under the 1894 Act, the Supreme Court in Kishore Chabbra vs State of Haryana 2025 deemed it appropriate to apply its compensation principles under Article 142.

Kishore Chhabra vs The State of Haryana (2025) Judgment and Impact

The Supreme Court in Kishore Chabbra vs State of Haryana 2025 examined the contentions of both the parties to the case. The judgment upheld the acquisition, emphasizing the significance of statutory compliance and the vesting of land. However, recognizing the unique circumstances of the appellant's long-standing possession and operational factory, the Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to direct a specific mode of compensation, aiming to achieve a just outcome within the existing legal framework.

• Rejection of Plea for Release:

 The Court in Kishore Chabbra vs State of Haryana 2025 upheld the High Court's decision in dismissing the appellant's writ petition seeking the release of his land. The Apex Court found no merit in the appellant's arguments for release based on discrimination or the applicability of the State Government's policies.

• Validity of CLU: 

The Court in Kishore Chabbra v. State of Haryana 2025 emphasized the crucial fact that the appellant had not obtained a valid Change of Land Use (CLU) for his factory, which was located in a controlled area. It held that a valid CLU was a statutory prerequisite for the lawful existence of the factory and for it to be considered under the land release policies.

• Plea of Discrimination: 

The Court in Kishore Chabbra vs State of Haryana 2025 rejected the discrimination argument, noting that the appellant's situation was distinguishable from the cases where land was released, primarily due to the lack of a valid CLU. It also noted the State's contention that some of the released lands were not even part of the same acquisition notification.

• Expenditure Incurred: 

The Court in Kishore Chabbra v. State of Haryana 2025 acknowledged the substantial expenditure incurred by the State in developing the acquired area and the potential impact of releasing the appellant's land on the overall planned development and green belt.

• Delay and Laches: 

The Court disagreed with the State's argument of delay and laches as the appellant made a continuous pursuit in this case. The appellant in Kishore Chabbra v. State of Haryana 2025 had even withdrawn his second writ petition in 2008 specifically because his representation for the release of the land was pending before the State Government, this shows persistent effort of the appellant in this case.

• Res Judicata: 

The Court also rejected the plea of res judicata, as the appellant's request for release had not been previously considered on its merits by the High Court. However, it added that the request was "not acceptable on merits.

• Exercise of Power under Article 142: 

Despite rejecting the plea for release, the Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice. Acknowledging the appellant's claim of continuous physical possession of the land and the existence of a running factory since 1970 (which the State had not effectively refuted), the Court directed a specific measure regarding compensation.

• Compensation under the 2013 Act: 

The Court directed that the compensation payable to the appellant for the acquired land should be calculated under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as on the date of its commencement. 

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Kishore Chabbra vs State of Haryana 2025 upheld the acquisition of the appellant's land due to the lack of a valid CLU and the potential disruption to planned development. However, recognizing the appellant's long-standing possession and the existence of a factory predating the acquisition, the Court used its special powers under Article 142 of Indian Constitution 1950 to ensure that he received compensation under the more beneficial provisions of the 2013 Act.