Holding

The acquisition is valid as it was for a public purpose of development and industrialisation, and the required notification was duly published; therefore the petitions are dismissed.

Summary

The State of Haryana, through the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), acquired land in Gurgaon for industrial development under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. The landowners filed writ petitions and special leave appeals challenging the acquisition on several grounds: alleged non‑publication of the notification under Section 4(1), that the acquisition was a profiteering venture involving the sale of land to the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC), that a company could not be the acquiring authority under Section 3(e), discrimination, and violation of a policy circular. The Supreme Court held that the substance of the notification was duly published, as evidenced by affidavits and objection petitions, and that the purpose of acquisition—development and industrialisation—constituted a valid public purpose. The Court rejected the profiteering allegation, noting that HUDA, not HSIDC, was the acquiring authority and that any profit did not defeat the public purpose. Claims of discrimination and procedural violations were also dismissed. Consequently, all appeals and writ petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

The substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the locality.
Whether the acquisition was made for a profiteering venture rather than a public purpose.
Whether a company (HSIDC) can be the acquiring authority under Section 3(e) of the Land Acquisition Act.
Whether the acquisition violated principles of non‑discrimination or the policy circular on land acquisition.
Whether the petitioners were entitled to compensation beyond market value or to allotment of alternative land.

Legislation cited

Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 18, s. 3, s. 4(1)

Subjects

Land acquisitionPublic purposeSection 4(1) notificationProfiteering allegationSection 3(e) company acquisitionHUDAHSIDCWrit petitionSpecial leave petition

Judgment

BHARAT SINGH & ORS.
A
v.
STAIB OF HARYANA & ORS.

SEP'IEMBER 13, 1988

B [MURARI MOHON DUTT AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 4( ])-Whether substance of
the notification is published in the localities concerned or not is pre-
eminently a matter of fact and not of law.

Land Acqu:Sition Act, 1894-Section 3-Public purpose-Deve-
C lopment and industrialisation of land is a public purpose and not a
profiteering venture.

Pleadings-Pleadings under Civil Procedure Coae and a writ peti-
tion or counter affidavit are different-In plaint or written statement
D facts are to be pleaded but in writ petition facts and evidence in proof
-
thereof is also to be pleaded. Point of law should be substantiated by
i
facts-The facts must be pleaded and proved by evidence which miist
appear from writ petition or counter affidavit-If not so done Court will
not entertain that point.

E The State of Haryana through Haryana Urban Development
Authority (BUDA) acquired some land under the Land Acquisition Act
for the purpose of development and utilisation of that land for indust-
rial purposes of Gurgaon under the Haryana Urban Development
Authority Act, 1977. The appellants herein filed writ petitions in the
High Court challenging the validity of the acquisition of land. The High
F Court dismissed the writ petition,. Hence the writ petitioners filed these
appeals by special leave. Some other affeCted persons also filed writ
petitions in this Court Dismissing all the appeals and the writ petitions,
this Court,

HELD: The first ground of attack to the acquisition that the sub-
G stance of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act has not been
published in the locality of the land said to be acquired is without any
foundation. Whether the substance of the notification was published or
not is pre-eminently a question of fad. It is apparent from the statement
made in paragraph 8 of the affidavit in reply of the Land Acquisition 4
Collector that the substance of the notification was published in the
H concerned localities. It is further stated in the affidavit that pursuant to
1050
' BHARAT SINGH '· STATE OF HARYANA 1051

such publication, 157 of the .land owners filed objections to the proposed
A
acquisition. This fact has not been disputed by the appellants . .In view of
these facts the first ground of attack is without any foundation
whatsoever. [l054D-E]

The second ground of attack was that the sole purpose of the
acquisition was for a profiteering venture of the Government to acquire B
land at nominal price and then to re"sale the same at a high profit,
Reliance was placed on an application for intervention filed in this
matter by Baryana State Industrial Development Corporation (BSIDC)
which showed that BUDA sold the land to BSIDC at a very high price
paid by BSIDC out of the amounts received from. intended allottees/
entrepreneurs. In the opinion of this Court the facts stated in the appli-
cation of the BSIDC do not, support the contention of the appellants. It c
is true that, as stated in the said application, BSIDC paid a sum of
Rs.I. 74 crores to BUDA, but nothing turns out on that. The land was
acquired by the Government for the purpose of development and
industrialisation. The Government can do it itself or through other
agencies. In the instant case, the land was acquired at the instance of D
BUDA and, thereafter, BUDA had transferred the same to BSIDC. It
is not that the land was transferred in the same condition as it was
acquired. But, we are told by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf
of BUDA and BSIDC that before transferring, BUDA had made ex-
ternal developments incurring considerable cost and BSIDC in its turn
has made various internal developments and in this way the land has E
been fully developed and made lit for industrialisation. Thus, there was
no motive,for BUDA to make any profit. [1058E-B; 1059A]

The "Public purpose" in question is development and industriali-
sation of the acquired land. The appellants have not challenged the said
public purpose. In the absence of any such challenge it does not lie in F
the mouth of the appellants to contend that the acquisition was merely a
profiteering venture by the State Government through Haryana Urban
Development Authority. Even assuming that HUDA has made some
profit, that will not in any way affecl the public purpose for which the
land was acquired and the acquisition will not be liable for any
challenge on that ground. [1059B-D] G

Arnold Rodricks v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1966 SC 1788,
referred to.

When a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to
be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the H
-

1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which
must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent from
the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in
support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the
counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the
point. [1059F-G]
B
There is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil
Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading,
that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are
.: required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not
only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be
C pleaded and annexed to it. [1059G-B]

The contention of the appellants that the acquisition is for BSIDC
which is a 'company' within the meaning of section 3(e) of th~ Act and,
accordingly, the acquisition is invalid for the non-compliance with the
provisions of Part-III of the Act is untenable. In the notification under
D section 4(1), it has been clearly stated that the development and
industrialisation of the acquired land would be made under the
Baryana Development Authority Act, 1977 by BUDA. It is, therefore,
manifestly clear that BUDA was the acquiring authority and not
HSIDC. It is for BUDA to develop the land fully either by itself or by
any other agency or agencies. HUDA has transferred the land to BSIDC
E for the purpose of development and allotment to various persons. It is too
much to say that as BUDA has transferred the acquired land to
HSIDC, the latter is the acquiring authority. [1060B-D1

The contention that the petitioners have been discriminated
inasmuch as the land of other persons in the village has not been
F acquired is without any substance whatsoever. The Government will
acquire only that amount of land which is necessary and suitable for the
public purpose in question. The land belonging to the petitioners have
been acquired obviously considering tne same as suitable for the
public purpose. [106ID]

G CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil
Appeal No. 1193 of 1984 and 572-573 of 1985.

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.1983 of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 1659, 1777 and 1659 of 1983. 41>

H Writ Petition (C) Nos. 11106-27 of 1984.
BHARAT SINGH 1. STATE OF HARYANA [DUTT. J.J 1053

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
A
U.R. Lalit, D.N. Goburdhan and Pankaj halra for the
Appellants.

R.N. Sachthey, D.S. Tewatia, Anip Sachthey and Mahabir Singh
for the Respondents. U

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DUTT, .I. In these appeals and writ petitions, the appellants and
the petitioners have challenged the validity of the acquisition of their
land by the State of Haryana under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for a puhlic purpose, namely, for c
the development and utilisation of land for industrial purpose at
Gurgaon under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977
by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short HUDA).
Although, both in the appeals and in the writ petitions the validity of
acquisition has been challenged, we propose to deal with the appeals D
first.

The appeals are directed against the judgments of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court dismissing~the writ petitions of the appellants
questioning the validity of the acquisition of their land and praying for
the quashing of such acquisition. E

The first ground of attack. to the acquisition, as urged by Mr.
Lalit, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in
Civil Appeal No. 1193 of 1984, is the non-publication of the substance
of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act in the locality of the
land sought to be acquired. It is true that section 4(1) enjoins-that the F
Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of the notification
to be given at convenient places in the locality. It is however, pre-
eminently a question of fact. The allegation of the appellants as to the
non-publication of the notification under section 4( I), as made in the
writ petition before the High Court, was emphatically denied and
disputed in paragraph 8 of the affidavit in opposition affirmed by the G
Land Acquisition Collector. Paragraph 8 reads as follows:

"8. In reply to para 8 of the writ petition, it is submitted
. -. that the averments of the petitioners are wrong and denied.
The publicity of the substance of the notification was made
in concerned locality of village Dundahera on 6th July, H
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. i2
1981 through Shri Chhattar Singh Chowkidar with loud
A
voice and beating of empty tin. The report exists in
Roznamcha Vakyati at Serial No. 519 dated 6.7.1981. Simi-
larly, the publicity was made in concerned locality of ~

village Mulahera through Shri Surjan Singh Chowkidar
with loud voice and beat of empty tin (Kanaster). A report
B to this effect exists in Roznamcha Vakyati at Serial No. 520
dated 6. 7 .1981. The publicity was made on this very day on
which the notification was issued. In response to this pub-
licity 157 land-owners filed objection applications which
dearly shows that due publicity was made in the concerned
locality and the averments of the petitioners are wrong, 4
baseless and hence denied."
c
It is apparent from the statement made in paragraph 8 that the
substance of the notification under section 4(1) was published in the
concerned localities of villages Dundahera and Mulahera. It is, how- '

ever, urged on behalf of the appellants that it was not at all possible to
D make entries in the Roznamcha as to the publication of the notification
under section 4( i) on the same day it was published in both the villages.
It is submitted that on this ground the statement in paragraph 8 as to I
the publication of the substance of the notification in the localities
should not be accepted, and it should be held that there was no such
publication as alleged. We are afraid, we are unable to accept the
E contention. Apart from the statement that there was publication of the
notification, there is a further statement in paragraph 8 that pursuant
to such publication, 157 land-owners filed objections to the proposed
acquisition. This fact has not been disputed before us on b~half of the
appellants. Moreover, Mr. Tewatia, learned Counsel appearing on

F
behalf of the State of Haryana, has produced before us the original
objection petitions filed by the land-owners. In each of these objection •
petitions there is a note at the end which reads as follows:

"Note: The above referred notification was announced by
the beat of drum in the village Dundahera on 6. 7 .1981, vi de
Patwari's Roznamcha Report No. 519 dated 6.7. 1981."
G
Similar notes, as extracted above, are there in the petitions of
objections filed by the land-owners of village Mulahera. In view of the
facts stated above, the allegation of the appellants that the substance
of the notification under section 4( 1) of the Act was not published in
the localities of the two villages mentioned above, is without any foun- ~
.
H dation whatsoever. The contention of the appellants in this regard is
rejected.
j BHARAT SINGH '· STATE OF HARYANA [DUTT. J.) 1055

The next ground of attack to the acquisition comes from Mr.
A
Kalra, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in
Civil Appeals Nos. 572 & 573 of 1985. It is urged by the learned
Counsel that the sole purpose of the acquisition is for a profiteering
venture of the Government to acquire land of the helpless farmers at a
nominal price of Rs.10, Rs.20 or Rs.50 per square yard and then to
resale the same at a high profit. It is submitted that a welfare State B
should work for the poor and the down-trodden of the society rather
than to displace them from their I.and for the sake of making profit.
Our attention has been drawn by the learned Counsel to an application
., filed in this Court by the Haryana State Industrial Development
Corporation (for short HSIDC) praying for impleading it as a party-
respondent in these appeals. In this application it has been stated, inter
alia, by HSIDC that it plays an important role in the industrialisation c
of the State by providing concessional finance and offering land at no
profit no loss basis along with infra-structure facilities for setting up
new industrial units in the State. Further, it is stated that the land in
Udhyog Vihar, Phase-IV, (land which is the subject-matter of these
appeals), was acquired by HUDA and later sold to HSIDC at the D
approximate price of Rs.55,000 per acre. In paragraph 5 of the appli-
cation, it is stated that on account of the price of the above land of
Phase-IV, approximately Rs.1.74 crores was paid by the HSIDC to
HUDA. The said payment was made out of the amounts received from
the intended allottees/entrepreneurs and also out of the funds/reserves
of the HSIDC, and that a sum of Rs.4.90 crores is estimated to be E
spent on the development of the industrial complex in question.

Relying upon the above statements in the said application of
HSIDC, the learned Counsel for the appellants, endeavours to sub-
stantiate his contention that the impugned acquisition is nothing but a
profiteering venture of the Government. It is urged that the said state- F
ments in the application prove that the Government has made huge
profit in the guise of development and utilisation of the land for indust-
rial purpose at Gurgaon.

In support of the contention, Mr. Kalra has placed reliance upon
an observation of Mahajan, J. (as he then was) in the State of Bihar v. G
Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh, [1952] 3 SCR 889, namely,

1 that it is a well accepted proposition of law that property of individuals
cannot be appropriated by the State under the power of compulsory
.acquisition for the mere purpose of adding to the revenues of the
.... State. The learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the observation
'in the minority judgment of Wanchoo, J. in Arnold Rodricks v. State of H

/
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
'
I 1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A Maharashtra, AIR 1966 SC 1788. In that case, the enquiries purported
L
,;:·

to be held under section SA and section 11 of the Act were challenged
as illegal, invalid and inoperative in law. In that connection, the vali-
dity of the definition of .. Public purpose" in clause (f) of section 3 of
the Act, as amended by the Bombay Amendment Act 35 of 1953, also
came to be considered. Clause (2) of the amended definition in clause
B (f) reads as follows:

"(f). the expression "Public purpose" includes-

(1)
•
(2) the acquisition of land for purposes of the development
c of areas from public revenues or some fund controlled or
managed by a local authority and subsequent disposal
thereof in whole or any part by lease, assignment or sale,
will be object of securing further development."

D Wanchoo, J. observed as follows:

"(33). The attack of the petitioners is on the second part of '
the addition in 1953 which provides for .. subsequent dis-
posal thereof in whole or in part by lease, assignment, or
sale, with the object of securing further development." It is
E urged that all these words means that after the develop-
ment envisaged in the first part of the addition the State or
the local authority would be free to dispose of the land
acquired in whole or in part by lease, assignment or sale,-
apparently to private persons. This, it is said, means that
the State or the local authority would acquire land in the
F first instance and develop it in the manner already indi-
cated and thereafter make profit by leasing, assigning or
selling it to private individuals or bodies. It is also said that
the object of securing further development which is the
reason for sale or lease etc. is a very vague expression and
there is nothing to show what this further development
G comprises of.

(34). It is true that when this part speaks of "subsequent
disposal thereof in whole or in part by lease, assignment
or sale'', it is not unlikely that this disposal will take
place to private persons and thus in an indirect way the
H State would be acquiring the land from one set of indivi-
BHARAT SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA [DUTT, J.] 1057

'"--._,. duals and .disposing it of to another set of individuals after
A
some development. If this were all, there may be some
force in the.argument that such acquisition is not within the
\. concept of "public purpose" as used in Art. 31(2). But this
r in our opinion is not alL We cannot ignore the words "with
the object of securing further development", which appear
in this provision. It would have been a different matter if B
the provision had stoppeu at the words "lease, assignment
or sale"; but the provision does not stop there. It says that
such lease, assignment or sale must be with the object of
securing further development, and these words must be
given some meaning. It is true that the words. '.'further
development" have not been defined, but that was bound
to be so, fot further development would depend upon the c
nature of the p11rpose for which the land is acquired. Of
course, it is possible that further development can be made
by the State itself or by the local authority which acquired
the land; but we see no reason why the State or the local
authority should not have the power to see that further D
development takes place even through private agencies by
" lease, assignment or sale of such land. So long as the object
is development and the land is made fit for the purpose for
which it is acquired there is no reason why the State should
not be permitted to see that further uevelopment of the
land takes place in the direction for. which the land is E
acquired, even though that may be through private
agencies. We have no doubt that where the State or the
local authority decides that further development should
take place through private agencies by disposal of the land
so acquired by way of lease, assignment or sale, it will see
that further development which it has in mind does take F
place. We can see no reason why if the land so acquired is
leased, assigned or sold, the State or the local authority
should not be able to impose terms on such lessees,
assignees or vendees that will enable further development
on the lines desired to take place. We also see no reason
why when imposing terms, the State or the local authority G
may not provide that if the further development it desires
the lessee, assignee Or vendee to make is not made within
such reasonable time as the State or the local authority may
fix, the land will revert to the State or the local authority so
" that it may again be used for the purpose of further
development which was the reason for the acquisition of H
the land."
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

We fail to understand how does the above observation help .the
A contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the acquisi-
tion has been made by the Government with a motive for profiteering
in the guise of development and industrialisation. The observation of
Wanchoo, J relates to the definition of "Public purpose" under section
3(f) of the Act as amended by the Bombay Amendment Act 35 of
B 1953. The amended provision specifically provides for the disposal of
acquired land in whole or in part by lease, assignment or S'ale, but
there is no such provision in the unamended section 3(f) of the Act
with which we are concerned. Wanchoo, J overruled the contention as
to profiteering by the State or local authority as the amended provision
made it very clear that such subsequent disposal of the acquired land <
will be for the purpose of securing further development. We do not
c think we are called upon to express any opinfon on the correctness or
otherwise of the above observation, and all that we say is that there is
no such provision like the amended definition in section 3(f) of the Act
with which we are concerned. In the circumstances, the observation
has no manner of application in the instant case.

In the writ petitions, the point was taken as an abstract point of
law. There was no attempt on the part of the appellants to substantiate
the point by pleading relevant facts and producing relevant evidence.
It is apparent that there was no material in the writ petitions in support
of the contention of the appellants that the impugned acquisition was
E nothing but a profiteering venture. The contention was not also
advanced before the High Court at the hearing of the writ petitions.
The facts stated in the said application of the HSIDC do not, in our
opinion, support the contention of the appellants. It is true that, as
stated in the said application, HSIDC paid a sum of Rs. I. 74 crores to
HUDA, but nothig turns out on that. The land was acquired by the
F Government for the purpose of development and industrialisation.
The Government can do it itself or through other agencies. In the
instant case, the land was acquired at the instance of HUDA and,
thereafter, HUDA had transferred the same to HSIDC. It is not that
t1'e land was transferred in the same condition as it was acql)ired. But,
we are told by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of HUDA and
G HSIDC that before transferring, HUDA had made external develop-
ments incurring considerable cost and HSIDC in its turn has made
various internal developments and in this way the land has been fully
developed and made fit for industrialisation. Our attention has been
drawn by the learned Counsel for HUD A and HSIDC to the various
external developments made by HUDA at a total cost of Rs. 1,66,200
H per acr~ before it was transferred to HSIDC and the cost that was
BHARAT SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA [DUTT, J.[ 1059

incurred for external developments was included in the price. Thus, A
there was no motive for HUDA to make any profit.

The "public purpose" in question, already noticed, is develop-
ment and industrialisation of the acquired land. The appellants have
not challenged the said "public purpose". In the absence of any such
challenge, 'it does not lie in the mouth of the appellants to contend that B
the acquisition was merely a profiteering venture by the State Govern-
ment through HUDA. The appellants will be awarded the market
value of the land as compensation by the Collector. If they are dis-
satisfied with the award they may ask for :references to the District
' Judge under section 18 of tlje Act. If they are still aggrieved, they can
file appeals to the High Court and, ultimately, may also come to this
Court regarding the amount of compensation. The appellants cannot C
claim compensation beyond the market value of the land. In such
circumstances, we fail to understand how does the question of pro-
fiteering come in. Even assuming that HUDA has made some profit,
that will not in any way affect the public purpose for which the land
was acquired and the acquisition will not be liable for any challenge on D
that ground.
'
As has been already noticed, although the point as to profiteer-
ing by the State was pleaded in the writ petitions before the High
Court as an abstract point of law, there was no reference to any mate-
rial in support thereof nor was the point argued at the hearing of the E
writ petitions. Before us also, no particulars and no facts have been
given in the special leave petitions or in the writ petitions or in any
affidavit, but the point has been sought to be substantiated at the time
of hearing by referring to certain facts stated in the said application by
HSIDC. In our opinion, when apoint which is ostensibly a point of law
is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if F
he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence
which· must appear froni the writ petition and if he is the respondent,
from the counter-affidiivit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence
in support oCsuch .facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the
counter-affidavit, as'tlte case may be, the court will not entertain the
point. In this context, it Wiibmt be out of place to point out that in this G
regard there is. a distinction between a pleading under the Code of
Civil Procedure· and a· writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a
pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not
evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or iri the
counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of
such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. So, the point that has H
'
!060 SUPREME'COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

been raised before us by the appellants is not entertainable. But, in
A
spite of that, we have entertained it to show that it is devoid of any
merit.

Equally untenable is the contention or the appellants that the
acquisition is for HSIDC which is a 'company' within the meaning of
B section 3( e) of the Act and, accordingly, the acquisition is invalid for
the non-compliance with the provisions of Part-III of the Act. In the
notification under section 4(1), it has been clearly stated that the
development and industrialisation of the acquired land would be made
under the Haryana Development Authority Act, 1977 by HUDA. It
is, therefore, manifestly clear that HUDA was the acquiring authority
and not HSIDC. It is for HUDA to develop the land fully either by
c itself or by any other agency or .agencies. HUDA has transferred the
land to HSIDC for the purpose of development and allotment to
various persons. It is too much to say that as HUDA has transferred
the acquired land to HSIDC, the latter is the acquiring authority. We
do not think that there is any substance in the contention and it is,
D accordingly, rejected.

Now we may consider the contention made on behalf of the I
petitioners in the writ petitions Nos. 11106 to 11127 of 1984. The first
point that has been urged by Mr. Goburdhan, learned Counsel appear-
ing on behalf of the writ petitioners, is similar to that urged by Mr.
E Lalit in Civil appeal No. 1193 of 1984, namely, non-publication of the
.substance of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act in the loca-
lity. This contention need not detain us long, for in the counter-
affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Collector, it has been averred
that the substance of the notification was published and out of 22
petitioners 16 filed their objections pursuant to the publication of the
F notification in the locality. A similar note, as extracted above, appears
in· all these objections. In the circumstances, there is no substance in
the contention of the· petitioners that the substance of the notification
under section 4( 1) of the Act was not published in the locality.

Next it is urged on behalf of the petitioners that before starting
G the proceedings for acquisition, the Government had .nwapplied its
mind to its policy decision, as contained in .the circular
No. 2099-R-III-82/17113 dated 18.5.1982 wherein it has been stated
that "in the matter of State's need for land for its development
activities, utmost restraint should be exercised in the acquisition of
land." It is submittted that as the land is agricultural, it should not
H have been acquired in view of the said policy decision of the Govern-
BHARAT SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA [DUTT, J.l 1061

ment. We are unable td accept the contention. In a welfare State, it is A
the du\y of the Government to proceed with the work of development
and take steps for the growth of industries which are necessary for the
country's progress and prosperity and for solving the question of
unemployment. It is true that agricultural land is necessary and should
not ordinarily be converted to non-agricultural use, but keeping in
view the progress and prosperity of the country, the State has to strike B
a balance between the need for development of industrialisation and
the need for agriculture. The allegation that before initiating the
acquisition proceedings, the Government has not applied its mind to
, the need for agricultural land is a very vague allegation without any.
material in s,upport thereof. The contention is overruled.

Lastly, it is argued by Mr. Goburdhan for the writ petitioners c
that the petitioners have been· discriminated inasmuch as the land of
other persons in the village has not been acquired. This contention is
without any substance whatsoever. The Government will acquire only
that amount of land which is necessary and suitable for the public
purpose in question. Th~ land belonging to the petitioners have been D
acquired obviously considering the same as suitable for the public
purpose. The. petitioners cannot complain of any discrimination
because the land of other persons has not been acquired by the
Government. The contention is devoid of any merit whatsoever.

Before parting with these cases, we may consider a short submis- E
sion on behalf of the appellants as also the writ petitioners that as by
the acquisition of their land they have become landless, they should be
allotted land by HSIDC, after development, so that they may start
their businesses and earn their livelihood. After giving our anxious
consideration to this submission, we direct that if any of the appellants
or the petitioners, ~ho has become really landless by the acquisition of F
his land, makes an application for the allotment of land, the HSIDC
shall consider such application and give him priority in the matter of
allotment provided he fulfils the conditions for such allotment and plot
is available.

Another short submission has been made on behalf of the appel- G
!ants in Civil Appeal No. 1193 of 1984. Our attention has be'en drawn to
paragraphs 4 and 5 of the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the
appellants, and affirmed by one Sat Prakash, son of Mathura Prashad,
• one of the appellants, that.in Khasra No. 21/6/2 and in Khasra No.
22/10/1, there are a temple, a Piaou and a Dharamshala. It is submit-
ted that the land comprising the temple, Piaou and Dharamshala may H
1062 SUPREME COURT.REPoRTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A be exempted frcim acquisition. We do not consider it necessary to give
any direction in t!Jis respect. The appellants, however, will be at
liberty to make a representation in that regard to the authority con-
cerned. No other point has been urged in these cases .

. For the reasons afores;iid. subject to the directions given on the
8 short.submissions, all the appeals and the writ petitions aie dismissed.
There will, however, be no order as to costs in any of them.

H.S.K. Appeals and Petitions are dismissed.

;

.'