Judgment:
CWP No.13659 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.13659 of 2012 Date of Decision:- May 09, 2013 Om Parkash Goyal and others ..............PETITIONER(S) vs. State of Haryana and others ...........RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA Present:- Mr. Manot Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notifications dated 13.05.2010 and 12.05.2011 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') on the ground that they are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
2. The pleaded case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are in the business of computer hardware and networking training through a company namely IACM Smartlearn Ltd. which was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and has 80 centers in 18 States all over India employing 400 employees and the company is having a good reputation. The petitioners were running the company and had purchased vide sale deeds dated 25.04.2008, land measuring 42 kanals 17 marlas situated in village Malpura, Tehsil Dharuhera, District Rewari and applied for partition since it was a condition precedent to obtain change of land use (for short 'CLU'). A notification dated 13.05.2010 under Section 4 of the CWP No.13659 o”
2. Act was issued proposing to acquire land situated at various villages namely village Kapriwas, Malpura and Ghatal Mahniawas, Tehsil Dharuhera, District Rewari for the public purpose namely development of industrial sectors 15, 16 and 17 Dharuhera to be planned as an integrated complex for industrial and other public utilities. The alleged object of acquisition was likely to be carried out by Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (for short 'the HSIDC') since the industrial sectors are developed by the State Corporation. The land of the petitioners also fell in the said notification and, therefore, objections were filed under Section 5-A of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) for release of land/exemption on the ground that the land was to be used for setting up of industrial center to fulfill the requirement of the trained skilled manpower of the company IACM. The second declaration dated 12.05.2011 under Section 6 of the Act was issued wherein, the land being acquired was reduced to 435 acres from 494 acres but the land of the petitioners remained included. The State had issued policies and guidelines for exemption/release of the land and reliance was placed upon the policy dated 24.01.2011. Reliance was also placed on order dated 22.07.2011 whereby instructions had been issued that the Government of India was likely to introduce a bill proposing certain amendments in the Act and, therefore, it would be desirable to wait for a new Legislation before proceeding further in cases of land acquisition. The petitioners had filed a representation before the Financial Commissioner-cum-Principal Secretary to Government for release of the land, which was pending consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition was filed alleging that the Government had released 60 acres of land from acquisition and no proper survey had been conducted and opportunity of hearing was not given and the Government had issued orders to keep the acquisition proceedings pending till the amendment of the Act was finalized. The petitioners were to use the land for the same purpose for which it was being acquired and, therefore, the acquisition was liable to be quashed. CWP No.13659 o”
3. 3. In the written statement filed by respondent No.2, it was pleaded that the land had not been utilized for the alleged purpose and was lying vacant as per Section 5-A report of the LAC, Rewari. The HSIDC was the nodal agency of the State Government to develop the industrial infrastructure in the State and prepared its plans for creation of the land bank and its subsequent development for meeting the requirement of industry and industrial growth. In conformity with the development plan, the proposal to acquire the land had been made after the notification under Section 4 was issued and the objections under Section 5-A of the Act had been duly considered and the Land Acquisition Collector had submitted his recommendations to the Government. The Government had sought comments of the HSIDC and the view of the Deputy Commissioner, Rewari had also been sought. The team of officers led by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Industries, Commerce Department and consisting of the Managing Director, HSIDC, the Additional Director (Technical), office of the Director of Industries, Commerce, Haryana, the Chief Town Planner and the Senior Town planner, HSIDC alongwith the Land Acquisition Collector visited each of the sites in respect of which the objections had been filed and the proposal under Section 6 of the Act was formulated based on a fair assessment of the said team. Due regard had been given to leave out such of the areas where already constructed structures could be accommodated and adjusted within the development plans keeping in view the futuristic development plan of the town. Accordingly, 59 acres 1 kanal and 16 marlas of land which was found to be under residential structures, built up and running industrial units had been excluded from the Section 6 declaration. The Land Acquisition Collector's report showed that the only boundary walls existed on the site and the complete land in question was vacant except the boundary wall and the land was acquired for the integrated planning and development of area and, therefore, complete land was recommended for acquisition since the land in subject was located in the CWP No.13659 o”
4. middle of the total land under acquisition and essentially required for completion of the project, which would be clear from the plan Annexure R-1. The petitioners have approached the concerned authorities for CLU to set up a warehouse and industrial unit and had not obtained CLU permission from the competent authority. Thereafter, the declaration was issued for acquisition of land measuring 435 acres 1 kanal 12 marlas in the three villages. A policy had been formulated for rehabilitation and resettlement of land owners – oustees which was notified by the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management vide notification dated 07.12.2007 which had subsequently been revised by the latest policy dated 09.11.2010. As per the policy, an amount of `21,000/- per acre was to be paid every year to the land owners for a period of 33 years and this was to be increased @ `750 every year apart from the 1/10th amount which was to be paid. The petitioners were eligible to avail the benefits of the policy.
4. In the replication filed by the petitioner, it was pleaded that since the petitioners had filed partition application and the said partition was allowed vide order dated 18.05.2010 by the learned Assistant Collector Ist Class, Rewari, the authorities have not made proper inspection of the site and the team had failed to notice that other land surrounding the land of the petitioners has not been acquired and, therefore, this solitary piece of land could have been easily spared. The proposed usage of the land by the petitioners was not in conflict with the public purpose and the objections under Section 5-A of the Act had not been properly considered. The 60 acres of land which has been released by the Government from acquisition had been done by adopting the principle of pick and choose.
5. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the petitioners were trying to put the land to industrial use and, therefore, it was in conformity with the purpose for which it was being acquired and while releasing over 59 acres of land, the authorities had not taken into consideration the CWP No.13659 o”
5. objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act.
6. State, on the other hand, defended the acquisition saying that there was no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the objections under Section 5-A of the Act were duly considered and the land was vacant and the site was only bounded by walls.
7. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the writ petition merits dismissal. Firstly, it is to be noticed that the petitioners are individuals who have purchased the land and have alleged that they are running a company namely IACM Smartlearn Ltd. incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 which will be utilizing the land in future for the said purpose for which it was being acquired. The petitioners are totally separate entities than the company and it is not the company which is owning the land. The State is acquiring the land for a public purpose for setting up an industrial area and for planned development. The land is admittedly lying vacant and does not fall within the exceptions for release which have been formulated by the State Government in its policy dated 24.01.2011. It covers those commercial establishments which existed prior to issuance of Section 4 notification and was functional at that time and continued thereafter also. The respondents have clarified that the land is lying vacant and their existed four walls and it is a large chunk of land measuring 42 kanals 17 marlas. The petitioners themselves have also placed photographs on record to show that the plot is bounded and it is not their case that it was being put to any commercial use. Therefore, the submission that it is liable to be released in view of the policy is without any basis. In M/s. Anand Buttons Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and others, 2005 (9) SCC 164.the Hon'ble Apex Court held that exemption can be granted as a matter of policy and it is not a right and the Court would not interfere with the satisfaction of the Authorities. Relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under:-
“13. It is trite law that not only land but also structure on CWP No.13659 o”
6. land can be acquired under the Act. As to whether in a given set of circumstances certain land should be exempted from acquisition only for the reason that some construction had been carried out, is a matter of policy, and not of law. If after considering all the circumstances, the State Government has taken the view that exemption of the lands of the appellants would render askew the development scheme of the industrial estate, it is not possible for the High Court or this Court to interfere with the satisfaction of the concerned authorities. We see no ground on which the appellants could have maintained that their lands should be exempted from acquisition. Even if three of the parties had been wrongly exempted from acquisition, that gives no right to the appellants to seek similar relief.”
8. The respondents have justified the release of 59 acres of land after the issuance of Section 4 notification on the ground that there existed residential structures built up and running industrial units. In view of the objections filed by the owners of the said land who were using the land which was sought to be acquired for residential and for industrial purpose who were given the benefit under the policy whereas the case of the petitioners is apparently different. A perusal of Annexure R-1 and the map Annexure P-10 shows that the petitioners' land is situated behind other industrial units and is in the middle of the area which is sought to be developed close to the highway and thus, can be used for the purpose of land development. The State is exercising its right of eminent domain of acquisition which cannot be interfered with in the absence of any procedural lapse, which the counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out. The Section 6 notification is dated 12.05.2011 and the petitioners cannot derive any advantage from letter dated 22.07.2011 (Annexure P-13) as it has been recorded CWP No.13659 o”
7. therein that Section 4 notifications which have been issued in the last six months on or after 01.02.2011 be put on hold and in the present case, the Section 4 notification was issued much earlier on 13.05.2010. Thus, the said letter is of no help to the petitioner.
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, no ground for interference is made out.
10. Dismissed. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Judge 09.05.2013 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) shivani Judge