Kishore Chhabra v. The State of Haryana
Background
In 1992, the Haryana government acquired land in Sonipat, including a plot on which the appellant said a factory had been running since 1970. He sought release of his land from acquisition, pointing out that other similarly-situated plots in the same notification had been released by the government, while his was not.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court found that the appellant never obtained a mandatory "Change of Land Use" (CLU) certificate, a basic legal requirement for running a factory or claiming release of land for commercial use, while the other landowners whose land was released either had a valid CLU or fell under different circumstances (e.g., released before the land was ever formally acquired, or for reasons unrelated to a factory). It therefore rejected his claim of discrimination and upheld the acquisition. However, taking into account that he had been in continuous physical possession running an actual factory and that the state hadn't seriously disputed this, the Court used its special constitutional powers (Article 142) to direct that his compensation be recalculated under the more generous 2013 land acquisition compensation law, explicitly clarifying this order was a one-off equitable step and not a precedent for other cases.
Lesson Learnt
A landowner cannot claim release of acquired land purely by pointing to other released plots without addressing basic legal requirements like a valid land-use certificate; even where a legal claim fails, courts can still use extraordinary powers to grant fair compensation on the special facts of a case.