Land Acquisition – Oustee Policy – Mandatory Injunction – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Limitation – Rehabilitation – Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) – Policy of 1992 – Policy of 2016.
(2025) 7 SCD 26 : 2025 INSC 843
Supreme Court of India
J.B. Pardiwala, J., R. Mahadevan; J.
Civil Appeal No. 7707 of 2025 and Connected Appeals
Held:
-
Eligibility for Plot Allotment under Oustee Policy: The respondents (oustees) are not entitled to claim plot allotments at the 1992 policy rates as a matter of legal right, relying on Brij Mohan v. HUDA (2011) 2 SCC 29. The Court clarified that the Brij Mohan decision does not mandate allotments at 1992 rates where oustees failed to apply in the prescribed format with requisite earnest money.
-
Applicability of 2016 Policy: Oustees are entitled to seek benefits under the 2016 policy, as amended in 2018. The Court directed respondents to submit online applications with the requisite earnest money within four weeks, to be processed by HUDA within eight weeks, subject to eligibility verification.
-
Maintainability of Suits under Section 39, Specific Relief Act, 1963: Suits filed by oustees for mandatory injunctions to enforce the 1992 policy were likely barred by limitation (3 years under Article 58 or 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963) as they were instituted 14–20 years after the cause of action arose in 1992. However, the Court refrained from dismissing the suits on this ground and extended the benefit of the 2016 policy.
-
Obligation and Compliance: The Court emphasized that oustees must comply with the policy’s procedural requirements, such as submitting applications in the prescribed format with 10% earnest money, to enforce HUDA’s obligation to allot plots. Non-compliance precludes invoking Section 39 for mandatory injunctions.
-
Rehabilitation and Article 21: Rehabilitation is not a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution but a humanitarian measure guided by fairness and equity. The Court cautioned against automatic extensions of rehabilitation schemes, noting they may lead to litigation and benefit unscrupulous elements.
-
Safeguards Against Misuse: HUDA and the State must ensure vigilance to prevent land grabbers or miscreants from exploiting the oustee policy. Allottees are restricted from transferring plots within five years without permission.
-
Judicial Precedent and Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied Wambaugh’s Inversion Test, Halsbury’s Test, and Goodhart’s Test to interpret Brij Mohan (supra), holding that its ratio does not extend to cases where oustees failed to apply as per the 1992 policy terms.
-
Policy Implementation: The Court upheld HUDA’s stance that allotments must follow the policy in force at the time of application (2016 policy), not the 1992 rates, as prices are determined by the advertisement under which plots are allotted (Rajiv Manchanda v. HUDA).
-
Directions: The Court permitted rustic or illiterate oustees to submit applications offline to the competent authority. The State and HUDA must complete the allotment process within eight weeks of application receipt, ensuring eligibility and preventing misuse.
-
General Observation: The Court advised States to limit rehabilitation schemes to destitute oustees whose livelihoods are intrinsically tied to the acquired land, warning against unnecessary schemes that fuel litigation.
Disposition: Appeals disposed of with directions for respondents to apply under the 2016 policy within four weeks. No further extension of time permitted. Judgment to be circulated to all High Courts.
Cases Referred:
-
Brij Mohan v. HUDA (2011) 2 SCC 29
-
Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) 10 P&H CK 0212
-
State of U.P. v. Pista Devi AIR 1986 SC 2025
-
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000) 10 SCC 664
-
Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) 10 SCC 43
Statutes Referred:
-
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 39
-
Limitation Act, 1963 – Articles 58, 113
-
Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 – Section 50
-
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
