In Brief
The appellant owned land in Haryana that was acquired by the State in 1992 for urban development. He sought release of the land, claiming to have operated a factory there since 1970 and pointing to other similar cases where land was released. The Supreme Court upheld the land acquisition but rejected the release claim, finding the appellant lacked a valid Change of Land Use certificate—a statutory requirement. The Court also rejected discrimination arguments, distinguishing the other landowners' cases. However, acknowledging the appellant's continuous possession and factory operation, and finding the State had not adequately controverted this, the Court directed that compensation be calculated under the 2013 Rehabilitation Act effective from its commencement date, exercising discretionary power under Article 142 as a special remedy.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.