Present : Mr.Piyush Bansal Dag Punjab. Vs. M/S Ritesh Industries Ltd. Ludhiana and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1133208
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMar-11-2014
AppellantPresent : Mr.Piyush Bansal Dag Punjab.
RespondentM/S Ritesh Industries Ltd. Ludhiana and Others
Excerpt:
fao-1344-2014 (o&m) :1: in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh fao no.1344 of2014(o&m) decision : 11.03.2014 government of punjab and others .....appellant(s) versus m/s ritesh industries ltd.ludhiana and others .....respondent(s) present : mr.piyush bansal, dag, punjab. for the appellant(s).mr.anand chhibber, sr.advocate with mr.vaibhav sahni, advocate for the respondent(s).1. to be referred to the reporters or not?. 2. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. *** rajiv narain raina, j. (oral) the appellant government of punjab acquired a large chunk of land for public purpose of industrial development under the provisions of sections 4 and 6 of the land acquisition act, 1894. after acquiring the land from the land owners.the government floated an industrial policy dated 24.11.1992 by which a scheme called “off the shelf”. allotment of plots was formulated and the land was offered in terms of the scheme to various companies applying for allotment on the terms and conditions set out in the industrial policy. the respondent company, m/s ritesh industries limited made an offer which was accepted and 40 acres of land were allotted to the respondent. the sale consideration was tentatively fixed at ` 6.30 lacs per kumar paritosh 2014.03.13 10:10 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fao-1344-2014 (o&m) :2: acre and the amount of ` 2.52 crores was paid to the government on 29.3.1994 in sale consideration and thereafter, a conveyance deed dated 11.12.1996 was executed between the parties to determine right, title and interest in the property. the respondent is in possession of the land since then. in the meantime, the land owners had approached the reference court under section 18 of the land acquisition act for enhancement of compensation. the collector awarded compensation @ ` 2,48,610/- per acre. reference court vide its award dated 18.12.2001 enhanced the compensation to ` 4.50 lacs per acre. the collector vide demand notice dated 11.9.2002 and 10.7.2003 made demand for additional payment of ` 1,91,79,662.00 and ` 41,22,284.00 from the respondent which was resisted by it. this led to the dispute being referred by the government of punjab in the department of industries and commerce through office order dated 10.7.2003 for resolution by arbitration under clause 20 of the conveyance deed which contained the arbitration clause. the additional director (small scale industries).punjab was appointed as the arbitrator by the appellant. the limited issue before the arbitrator and thereafter in the proceedings under section 34 of the centres around the interpretation of clause 14 of the conveyance deed. clause 14 reads as follows : - “that the amount payable to the vendor as development charges, cost of common facilities, cost of enhancement of price of the allotted land due to enhancement of compensation by the court or otherwise and all other expenses whatsoever resulting thereto including interest, shall be payable by the transferee to the vendor on demand and in the event of default, the vendor shall have the right kumar paritosh 2014.03.13 10:10 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fao-1344-2014 (o&m) :3: to recover the due amount as arrears of land revenue.”. though the amount payable to the vendors included all the components mentioned in clause 14 including enhancement of compensation by the court to be payable by the transferee on demand the question remained whether the amount of enhanced compensation from ` 2.5 lacs per acre to ` 4.5 lacs per acre would constitute a valid demand. what the government sought was to raise the demand keeping ` 6.3 lacs per acre as base and adding to it the difference in the compensation awarded by the collector and the reference court totalling ` 7.09 lacs. in this manner, by using the 'over and above' principle, the actual demand raised against the respondent transferee was ` 13 lacs and odd. the learned arbitrator has held that the claimant/transferee is liable to pay the enhanced rate of compensation ordered by the court along with solatium, additional market value, costs of superstructure actually paid/payable and the land acquisition charges at the rate fixed by the government despite delay in making reference to the court. they are, however, fully entitled to adjustment of ` 6.3 lacs per acre already paid by the respondent transferee company on 26.4.1994. these findings are found at page 89 of the paperbook. aggrieved by the award dated 10.4.2006, the government of punjab preferred objections through an application under section 34 of the act. learned additional district judge, chandigarh vide the impugned order dated 10.10.2012 has upheld the award and rejected the objections. the reasons recorded by the learned additional district judge, chandigarh are best put in his own words : - “21. bare reading of the above clearly shows that kumar paritosh 2014.03.13 10:10 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fao-1344-2014 (o&m) :4: respondent no.1 was liable to make the payment of amount towards development charges, cost of common facilities, cost of enhanced price of allotted land due to enhancement of compensation by the court or otherwise. reference of the dispute to the arbitrator was thus strictly as per clause 20 and 14 of the conveyance deed. 22. it has also been urged that the arbitrator had wrongly adjusted the amount of rs.6.30 lacs per acre from the enhanced compensation. record of the case shows that previously, the petitioner raised demand of rs.7.09 lacs per acre from the respondent no.1 being the enhanced compensation assessed by the court which they later on reduced to rs.5,92,947/- per acre. no doubt, respondent no.1 was liable to pay the enhanced compensation and the arbitrator rightly held so. at the same time, the arbitrator also took into consideration clause of the agreement dated 13.11.96 ex.p-3 vide which the parties agreed that : - 'that the tenative price of the land has been calculated at rs.6.30 lacs per acre. this is, however, subject to the adjustment when the development works are completed and the accounts are closed. the price is also subject to variation with respect to the cost of development and the cost of acquisition of land by the government.' 23. since the parties agreed that the amount of rs.6.30 lacs per acre was adjustable, the arbitrator correctly held that respondent no.1 was entitled to adjustment of the amount and it was liable to pay interest as ordered by the court on any amount which was payable by them in excess of the amount of rs.6.30 lacs per acre already paid by him from the date from which it was payable to the date of payment.”. after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the state of punjab and mr.anand chhibber, learned senior counsel appearing on caveat for the respondents, i do not find the present a fit case to interfere either in the award or in the order under section 34 of the act as the reasons for applying the 'over and above' principle of adjustment is kumar paritosh 2014.03.13 10:10 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fao-1344-2014 (o&m) :5: legally acceptable by application of clause 14 of the conveyance deed and is thus upheld, though the liability under section 14 continues by operation of the provision of the conveyance deed. any amount over and above will remain the liability of the respondent company. so far as the application for condonation of delay of 389 days in filing the present appeal under section 37 of the act is concerned, the same is liable to be dismissed since the explanation offered for delay is not acceptable as sufficient cause for condonation. the stock reason is based on the usual bureaucratic red tape. such pleas have been found unacceptable by the supreme court in office of the chief post master general & ors.versus living media india ltd.& anr., (2012).s.c.c.563 wherein the court has deprecated such delays on the part of the government bodies or governments, etc.in approaching court belatedly in the following words:- “12) it is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this court. they cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. in the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the government or a wing of the government is a party before us. though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. the claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be kumar paritosh 2014.03.13 10:10 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fao-1344-2014 (o&m) :6: accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. the law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the government. 13) in our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. the government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. the law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.”. therefore, the appeal is dismissed on the ground of bar of limitation as well in filing the appeal late by 389 days without sufficient cause shown to condone the delay. the appeal to stand dismissed both on merits and limitation. (rajiv narain raina) judge march 11, 2014 paritosh kumar kumar paritosh 2014.03.13 10:10 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

FAO-1344-2014 (O&M) :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1344 OF2014(O&M) DECISION : 11.03.2014 Government of Punjab and others .....Appellant(s) Versus M/s Ritesh Industries LTD.Ludhiana and others .....Respondent(s) Present : Mr.Piyush Bansal, DAG, Punjab.

for the appellant(s).Mr.Anand Chhibber, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Vaibhav Sahni, Advocate for the respondent(s).1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?.

2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

*** RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.

(Oral) The appellant Government of Punjab acquired a large chunk of land for public purpose of industrial development under the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

After acquiring the land from the land owneRs.the Government floated an industrial policy dated 24.11.1992 by which a scheme called “Off the Shelf”.

allotment of plots was formulated and the land was offered in terms of the scheme to various companies applying for allotment on the terms and conditions set out in the industrial policy.

The respondent company, M/s Ritesh Industries Limited made an offer which was accepted and 40 acres of land were allotted to the respondent.

The sale consideration was tentatively fixed at ` 6.30 lacs per Kumar Paritosh 2014.03.13 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1344-2014 (O&M) :2: acre and the amount of ` 2.52 crores was paid to the Government on 29.3.1994 in sale consideration and thereafter, a conveyance deed dated 11.12.1996 was executed between the parties to determine right, title and interest in the property.

The respondent is in possession of the land since then.

In the meantime, the land owners had approached the reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation.

The Collector awarded compensation @ ` 2,48,610/- per acre.

Reference Court vide its award dated 18.12.2001 enhanced the compensation to ` 4.50 lacs per acre.

The Collector vide demand notice dated 11.9.2002 and 10.7.2003 made demand for additional payment of ` 1,91,79,662.00 and ` 41,22,284.00 from the respondent which was resisted by it.

This led to the dispute being referred by the Government of Punjab in the Department of Industries and Commerce through office order dated 10.7.2003 for resolution by arbitration under Clause 20 of the Conveyance Deed which contained the arbitration clause.

The Additional Director (Small Scale Industries).Punjab was appointed as the Arbitrator by the appellant.

The limited issue before the Arbitrator and thereafter in the proceedings under Section 34 of the centres around the interpretation of clause 14 of the Conveyance Deed.

Clause 14 reads as follows : - “That the amount payable to the Vendor as development charges, cost of common facilities, cost of enhancement of price of the allotted land due to enhancement of compensation by the court or otherwise and all other expenses whatsoever resulting thereto including interest, shall be payable by the Transferee to the Vendor on demand and in the event of default, the Vendor shall have the right Kumar Paritosh 2014.03.13 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1344-2014 (O&M) :3: to recover the due amount as arrears of land revenue.”

.

Though the amount payable to the vendors included all the components mentioned in Clause 14 including enhancement of compensation by the Court to be payable by the transferee on demand the question remained whether the amount of enhanced compensation from ` 2.5 lacs per acre to ` 4.5 lacs per acre would constitute a valid demand.

What the Government sought was to raise the demand keeping ` 6.3 lacs per acre as base and adding to it the difference in the compensation awarded by the Collector and the reference Court totalling ` 7.09 lacs.

In this manner, by using the 'over and above' principle, the actual demand raised against the respondent transferee was ` 13 lacs and odd.

The learned arbitrator has held that the claimant/transferee is liable to pay the enhanced rate of compensation ordered by the Court along with solatium, additional market value, costs of superstructure actually paid/payable and the land acquisition charges at the rate fixed by the Government despite delay in making reference to the Court.

They are, however, fully entitled to adjustment of ` 6.3 lacs per acre already paid by the respondent transferee company on 26.4.1994.

These findings are found at page 89 of the paperbook.

Aggrieved by the award dated 10.4.2006, the Government of Punjab preferred objections through an application under Section 34 of the Act.

Learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide the impugned order dated 10.10.2012 has upheld the award and rejected the objections.

The reasons recorded by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh are best put in his own words : - “21.

Bare reading of the above clearly shows that Kumar Paritosh 2014.03.13 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1344-2014 (O&M) :4: respondent no.1 was liable to make the payment of amount towards development charges, cost of common facilities, cost of enhanced price of allotted land due to enhancement of compensation by the court or otherwise.

Reference of the dispute to the arbitrator was thus strictly as per clause 20 and 14 of the conveyance deed.

22.

It has also been urged that the arbitrator had wrongly adjusted the amount of Rs.6.30 lacs per acre from the enhanced compensation.

Record of the case shows that previously, the petitioner raised demand of Rs.7.09 lacs per acre from the respondent no.1 being the enhanced compensation assessed by the court which they later on reduced to Rs.5,92,947/- per acre.

No doubt, respondent no.1 was liable to pay the enhanced compensation and the Arbitrator rightly held so.

At the same time, the Arbitrator also took into consideration clause of the agreement dated 13.11.96 Ex.P-3 vide which the parties agreed that : - 'That the tenative price of the land has been calculated at Rs.6.30 lacs per acre.

This is, however, subject to the adjustment when the development works are completed and the accounts are closed.

The price is also subject to variation with respect to the cost of development and the cost of acquisition of land by the Government.' 23.

Since the parties agreed that the amount of Rs.6.30 lacs per acre was adjustable, the Arbitrator correctly held that respondent no.1 was entitled to adjustment of the amount and it was liable to pay interest as ordered by the court on any amount which was payable by them in excess of the amount of Rs.6.30 lacs per acre already paid by him from the date from which it was payable to the date of payment.”

.

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab and Mr.Anand Chhibber, learned Senior Counsel appearing on caveat for the respondents, I do not find the present a fit case to interfere either in the award or in the order under Section 34 of the Act as the reasons for applying the 'over and above' principle of adjustment is Kumar Paritosh 2014.03.13 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1344-2014 (O&M) :5: legally acceptable by application of clause 14 of the conveyance deed and is thus upheld, though the liability under Section 14 continues by operation of the provision of the conveyance deed.

Any amount over and above will remain the liability of the respondent company.

So far as the application for condonation of delay of 389 days in filing the present appeal under Section 37 of the Act is concerned, the same is liable to be dismissed since the explanation offered for delay is not acceptable as sufficient cause for condonation.

The stock reason is based on the usual bureaucratic red tape.

Such pleas have been found unacceptable by the Supreme Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & ORS.versus Living Media India LTD.& Anr., (2012).S.C.C.563 wherein the Court has deprecated such delays on the part of the Government bodies or Governments, etc.in approaching Court belatedly in the following words:- “12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court.

They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings.

In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.

Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions.

The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be Kumar Paritosh 2014.03.13 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1344-2014 (O&M) :6: accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available.

The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.

13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process.

The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment.

Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments.

The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.

Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.”

.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed on the ground of bar of limitation as well in filing the appeal late by 389 days without sufficient cause shown to condone the delay.

The appeal to stand dismissed both on merits and limitation.

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE March 11, 2014 Paritosh Kumar Kumar Paritosh 2014.03.13 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document