CWP No. 19595 of 2005 and other connected cases 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 28.01.2011 CWP No. 19595 of 2005 Anil Kakkar and another ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 5074 of 2004 Bal Kishan and others ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 13198 of 2004 Ramkesh ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 14399 of 2004 Deepak Singh ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 17628 of 2005 Mahindra Digital ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No.17630 of 2005 Magnum Strips and Tubes Pvt ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 19595 of 2005 and other connected cases 2 CWP No.17910 of 2005 Prem Singh and others ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No.18000 of 2005 M/s Sarvpriya Industries Ltd. ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No.18007 of 2005 Khazan Singh ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 18018 of 2005 M/sMonarch Tapes Ltd. ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 18056 of 2005 M/s Sunbeam Auto Ltd. ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 19595 of 2005 and other connected cases 3 CWP No. 18376 of 2005 Dharam Singh ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 18508 of 2005 Jagwati and others ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 18557 of 2005 Vijay Kumar and others ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No.19072 of 2005 Mangal Singh and others ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 19091 of 2005 Sushila and others ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 19595 of 2005 and other connected cases 4 CWP No. 19104 of 2005 M/s V & S (I) Pvt. Ltd. ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 19230 of 2005 M/s Cosmic Packers ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 19252 of 2005 SM Manufacturing Co. P. Ltd. ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 19317 of 2005 Rama Rani and others ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 19330 of 2005 M/s Tempo Alliances Pvt. Ltd. ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 19595 of 2005 and other connected cases 5 CWP No. 19369 of 2005 Ranbir Sagar ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 20127 of 2005 Jagdish Chander Malhotra ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 807 of 2006 Vinod Kumar Sehgal ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 842 of 2006 Kirti Goel ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 911 of 2006 Vinod Kumar Aggarwal ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 942 of 2006 M/s MVS Engineering Ltd. ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 952 of 2006 M/s Kumar Fastners ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 19595 of 2005 and other connected cases 6 CWP No. 1009 of 2006 Rakesh Jain ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 1090 of 2006 Santosh Plywood ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 1138 of 2006 Indian Chemical Works ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 1145 of 2006 M/sAgemco Metal Works ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 1211 of 2006 Ram Karan Dass Gupta ..... PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 1222 of 2006 M/s Kumar Engineering Works ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 19595 of 2005 and other connected cases 7 CWP No. 1223 of 2006 M/s Kumra Pharama Pvt. Ltd. ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 1377 of 2006 M/s Shades Plus and others ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 1650 of 2006 Umesh Aggarwal ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 7435 of 2006 M/s Brown Kaffee India Ltd. ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 9308 of 2006 M/s Dhruv Holdings Pvt. Ltd. ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 19595 of 2005 and other connected cases 8 CWP No. 9312 of 2006 M/s Shivani Estates Pvt. Ltd. ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 12313 of 2006 M/s BS Flow Systems Pvt.Ltd. ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 15711 of 2006 Deepak Saini ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 1042 of 2007 Pritam Singh ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 2821 of 2007 Rajwati and others ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 19595 of 2005 and other connected cases 9 CWP No. 16835 of 2009 Jai Pal s/o Sardar Singh ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 7352 of 2010 Ravi Dutt and others ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. M.L.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners (in CWP Nos. 19369, 20127 of 2005, 807, 842, 911, 952, 1009, 1145 and 1222 of 2006) Mr. G.K.Chawla, Advocate, (in CWP No. 19091 of 2005) Mr. N.D.Achint, Advocate, Mr. C.M.Munjal, Advocate, and Mr. Pawan Malik, Advocate (in CWP Nos. 942, 952, 1090, 1138, 1223, 1377, 1621 and 1650 of 2006) Mr. Kamaljit Singh Advocate, for Mr. R.P.S. Khosla Advocate. Mr. Raghuwinder Singh, Advocate and Mr. Vibhav Jain Advocate, for Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate, for HUDA (in CWP No. 7435 of 2006) Mr. A.K. Pathania, Advocate, for HSIIDC. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for HUDA (in CWP Nos. 9308 and 9312 of 2006) Mr. J.L.Malhotra, Advocate, for respondent No. 8 (in CWP No. 19252 of 2005) Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G. Haryana. *** CWP No. 19595 of 2005 and other connected cases 10 AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. Through this order, we propose to decide CWP Nos. 19595 of 2005, 5074, 13198 and 14399 of 2004, 17628, 17630, 17910, 18000, 18007, 18018, 18056, 18376, 18508, 18557, 19072, 19091, 19104, 19230, 19252, 19317, 19330, 19369 and 20127 of 2005, 807, 842, 911, 942, 952, 1009, 1090, 1138, 1145, 1211, 1222, 1223, 1377, 1650, 7435, 9308, 9312, 12313 and 15711 of 2006, 1042 and 2821 of 2007, 16835 of 2009 and 7352 of 2010 (46 cases), wherein notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the L.A. Act') dated 15.11.2002 (Annexure P-12) and 12.11.2003 (Annexure P-15), report of the High Powered Committee dated 10.11.2005 (Annexure P-19) and Award dated 18.11.2005 stand challenged. It was agreed between the counsel for the parties on 01.11.2005 that CWP No. 19595 of 2005 shall be treated as a lead case thus, the facts are being taken from it. M/s Aryan Exports-petitioner No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner firm') is a partnership firm. The land in dispute measuring 4 Kanals 2 Marlas comprised in Khasra No. 28/20/2/2/1 situated in the revenue estate of village Begampur Khatola, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was purchased vide registered sale deed dated 08.09.1995. The land, after purchase, was leased out to the petitioner firm vide registered sale deed dated 30.01.1996 for 99 years i.e. up to 29.01.2095. Entries to that effect was made in the revenue records and mutation was also sanctioned. The original owner, namely, Sh. Ram Lal Kakkar died and on the basis of the registered will, petitioner No. 1-Anil Kakkar stepped into his shoes and became the owner of the land. CWP No. 19595 of 2005 and other connected cases 11 Petitioner No. 2 was initially constituted in the year 1978 and was reconstituted vide a partnership deed dated 01.04.1997. The petitioner firm was to raise a building of its own, which was to be completely self-contained unit and was to accommodate all the departments, including quality control and inspection, stores, maintenance and accounts office etc. in addition to main production department and a show room. The nature of the business of the petitioner firm was of Creator and Exporters of Fashion wear. The petitioner firm applied for necessary permission for Change of Land Use (for short 'CLU') to the District Town Planner, Gurgaon in the year 1996. As formalities could not be completed, fresh application was submitted by the petitioner firm for permission on 05.08.2002 on a prescribed proforma. Site inspection was done by the District Town Planner (Enforcement), Gurgaon. Meanwhile, the project report was got registered with the District Industries Centre, Gurgaon and provisional Small Scale Industries certificate dated 23.09.2002 for manufacture of readymade garments was obtained on provisional basis by the petitioner firm. An application to the Pollution Control Board, Haryana for the grant of Water and Air Pollution Certificate was also submitted on 26.09.2002. The application for CLU of the petitioner firm was returned by the District Town Planner, Headquarters, Chandigarh vide letter dated 14.02.2003 on the ground that the land, for which the CLU was sought, stands acquired and the papers may be resubmitted after obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the Industries Department. The State of Haryana issued notification dated 15.11.2002 (Annexure P-12) under Section 4 of the L.A. Act for acquisition of 389 Acres 4 Kanal 17.79 Marla of land in Villages Begampur Khatola, Narsingpur and Khandsa, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The land was CWP No. 19595 of 2005 and other connected cases 12 needed by the Government at public expenses for public purpose, namely, for development of integrated complex for industrial, institutional, commercial, recreational and other public utilities i.e. to set up Industrial Sectors 34 and 35, Gurgaon. This was done keeping in view the economic activities particularly in the district of Gurgaon, where many industries have set up their units. A large number of domestic and foreign companies were ready and willing to set up their industries in Haryana and more particularly in District Gurgaon. To achieve the intended goal of economic development through industrialization, the Government of Haryana formulated Industrial Policy providing financial/fiscal incentives and also laid emphasis of strengthening of basic infrastructure. To meet this responsibility, the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., main industrial infrastructure developing agency through the State of Haryana intended to acquire the above-mentioned land for making optimum use of land for systematic growth of the industry. Objections under Section 5-A of the L.A. Act were filed by the petitioner firm. These objections were considered and rejected by the Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon. The State of Haryana issued a declaration dated 12.11.2003 under Section 6 of the L.A. Act (Annexure P-15) acquiring 340 Acre, 7 Kanal, 8.79 Marla of land. Vide the said declaration, land of the petitioners was sought to be acquired. However, vacant land belonging to several industrial units were not included in the declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act , such as that of M/s Nanu Enterprises, M/s Kaizen Products. The land of the petitioners was similarly situated and, therefore, they pressed the ground of discrimination. The matter was agitated by a large number of running industrial units and land owners by filing writ petitions in this Court, taking CWP No. 19595 of 2005 and other connected cases 13 the basic plea of discrimination and grant of no opportunity of hearing by the Land Acquisition Collector while considering their objections filed under Section 5-A of the L.A. Act. State of Haryana, vide notification dated 13.02.2004 (Annexure P-16), constituted a Sub-Committee to consider the submissions of the said land owners regarding possibility of release of their land acquired through the aforesaid notifications. The writ petitions were disposed of with directions that they may file representation before the Sub-Committee. The said Sub-Committee invited the representations from the land owners through Industrial Associations of Gurgaon and by giving press note in the leading newspapers of the area. After giving personal hearing to the land owners, the Sub-Committee submitted its report to the Government, which was, after consideration, accepted. Some of the land owners, whose land or a part thereof was not recommended for release by the Sub-Committee, filed writ petitions in the High Court. The petitioners filed CWP No. 8173 of 2005. The writ petition preferred by the petitioners along with several other writ petitions filed by various land owners challenging the notifications issued for acquisition of land as also against the report of the Sub-Committee qua their cases, were taken up together for hearing when a common consented order was passed by this Court on 16.07.2005 (Annexure P-17). This order was passed on the statement of the learned Advocate General Haryana that the State Government intended to constitute a High Powered Committee to consider the cases of the petitioners in the writ petitions for release of their land. The High Powered Committee shall examine the various grievances raised by the writ petitioners and if the petitioners file a detailed representation highlighting their grievances along with supporting documents, the same shall be gone into and the petitioners shall be CWP No. 19595 of 2005 and other connected cases 14 granted an opportunity of personal hearing. The High Powered Committee shall take a decision thereon. The Court further ordered that the writ petitioners shall be at liberty to approach this Court yet again in case any further grievance is left after the final decision of the Committee. The writ petitions were disposed of in terms of the consented order. In pursuance of the above order dated 16.07.2005, the petitioners filed detailed representations. The High Powered Committee considered the representations of the petitioners, who preferred to do so and submitted its report dated 10.11.2005 (Annexure P-19). On the basis of the said report, a Survey-cum-Layout Plan of Sectors 34-35, Phase VII was prepared by the State. The representations of the petitioners were rejected on the ground that the site is lying vacant and it is required for continuity and integrated planning. Thereafter, Award under Section 11 of the L.A. Act was pronounced on 18.11.2005 (P-32) by the Land Acquisition Collector. Faced with this situation and aggrieved by the above report, the petitioners again approached this Court and filed the present writ petition, wherein notifications under Sections 4 dated 15.11.2002 (Annexure P-12) and 6 dated 12.11.2003 (Annexure P-15) issued under the L.A. Act and the report submitted by the High Powered Committee dated 10.11.2005 (Annexure P-19) as also the Award dated 18.11.2005 (Annexure P-32) passed by the Collector have been assailed. The basic ground for challenge is the discrimination meted out to the petitioners. It is contention of the petitioners that the State of Haryana has released even vacant lands belonging to several industrial units such as that of M/s Nanu Enterprises measuring 4 Kanal 6 Marlas comprised in Khewat No. 126, Khata No. 187, Killa No. 7, Khasra No 17/1, M/s Kaizen CWP No. 19595 of 2005 and other connected cases 15 Products comprised in Rect. No. 8, Killa Nos. 11/2, 10, Rect. No. 7, Killa Nos. 6/1, 6/2/1, which land is situated in Village Narsingpur, against which even permission for CLU had not been sought or granted at the time of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. The land belonging to M/s Orient Crafts Limited measuring 4.25 Acres was released from acquisition despite the fact that the said land was lying totally vacant. Thus, prayer for release of the land is made. Upon notice having been issued, the respondents have filed their reply. The factual aspect, as asserted by the petitioners, has not been disputed. The only stand, which has been taken by the State of Haryana for justifying the rejection of the claim of the petitioners is that the existing working units, which were adjustable from planning and continuity point of view, were not notified for acquisition while issuing the notification under Section 4 dated 15.11.2002 under the L.A. Act. On consideration of the objections, some lands were released at the time of issuance of notification under Section 6 of the L.A. Act on recommendations of the Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon and Haryana State Industries Department. Sub-Committee, which was constituted vide notification dated 13.02.2004, considered the representations of the land owners and submitted its report, which was duly accepted by the State of Haryana. Thereafter, as per the statement given by the learned Advocate General, Haryana order dated 16.07.2005 was passed and accordingly, a High Powered Committee was constituted, which after giving personal hearing to the land owners, who submitted their representations for consideration and after visiting the site to confirm the ground realities, submitted its report, which was considered and accepted by the State Government. Hence, there is no illegality nor any unjust, arbitrary CWP No. 19595 of 2005 and other connected cases 16 discrimination has been done by the High Powered Committee nor any provisions of the L.A. Act have been contravened which would call for quashing of the report submitted by the High Powered Committee. The Committee considered the representations of the petitioners and finding that the land is lying vacant, had recommended acquisition for integrated planning of the Industrial estate. To the reply submitted by the State of Haryana, replication was preferred by the petitioners, wherein it was stated that after the filing of the writ petition, four pieces of land have further been released from the purview of acquisition, which were vacant i.e. land belonging to Naresh Kumar son of Shri A.N. Budhiraja and two others comprised in Khasra No. 1173, 1174 (1 Bigha 12 Biswas) vide letter dated 23.08.2006 (Annexure P- 34) and land of Mrs. Bina Mehra and others comprised in Khasra No. 1173 (7 Bighas 6 Biswas) vide letter dated 23.08.2006 (Annexure P-37) situated in Village Khandsa. Similarly, land of M/s APS Industries comprised in Khasra No. 6//8, 19/2, 20/3/2, 22/1,26,22/2 (25 Kanals 9 Marlas) vide letter dated 23.08.2006 (Annexure P-35) and the land of Sh. Kamal Gupta, comprised in Rect. No. 6, Khasra No. 10/2 (6 Kanals 3 Marlas) vide letter dated 23.08.2006 (Annexure P-36) also situated in Village Begampur Khatola, have been released from acquisition. It is the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners' land is similarly situated and, therefore, deserves similar treatment. It has further been undertaken by them that in case the land of the petitioners is released from the array of acquisition, the petitioners are ready and willing to comply with the conditions, which may be imposed by the respondents, as have been imposed in the cases of the aforesaid persons, whose land has been released. The entire area to be laid out for Sectors 34-35 of Gurgaon is CWP No. 19595 of 2005 and other connected cases 17 already dotted with industrial activities and a large number of industrial units have already been adjusted in the layout plan. The above-mentioned cases of release of land from acquisition are of vacant areas and there is no justification to pick and choose and acquire the area of the petitioners and others, whose writ petitions are pending in this Court. The whole bunch of 60 cases came up for hearing before this Court on 21.11.2008 when, on consideration of the pleadings and the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, Officers Committee comprising of the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Industries Department, Managing Director, HSIDC and Director of Industries, Haryana was constituted. The Court while constituting the aforesaid Committee, observed that having regard to the specific stand taken by the petitioners, the claim of each of the petitioners required fresh consideration by the said Committee. The petitioners, in all the writ petitions, were given liberty to submit their representations within 15 days in the office of the Managing Director, HSIDC to be put up before the Officers Committee,which shall consider and dispose of each case individually by passing a speaking and reasoned order. A consolidated report was required to be placed on the record by way of an additional affidavit on or before 23.02.2009, the date next fixed. Thereafter, the case was taken up on 23.02.2009 and 16.04.2009 leading to the submission of the consolidated report/recommendations of the Officers Committee constituted by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2008 on 21.7.2009 in the Court. Some of the writ petitions were disposed of by this Court having been rendered infructuous in the light of the above report of the Officers' Committee and the present remaining bunch of writ petitions is one in which relief was not granted to the petitioners and they had filed CWP No. 19595 of 2005 and other connected cases 18 objections to the Report. Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that after constitution of the High Powered Committee, a Ministers Committee was constituted which further released the land owned by M/s Common Export Pvt. Ltd., M/s Dhingra Motors, M/s Gabriel India Limited, M/s Asia Investment Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Purolator India Limited despite recommendations to the contrary made by the Sub-Committe and the High Powered Committee. He contends that apart from the earlier released lands, which are mentioned in the writ petitions are those pieces of lands, which were vacant and where no industry/factory is in operation. The discrimination qua the petitioners is writ large and the petitioners also deserve the same relief as has been granted to M/s Orient Crafts Limited, Naresh Kumar son of Shri A.N. Budhiraja, M/s APS Industries, Sh. Kamal Gupta, Mrs. Bina Mehra, M/s Common Export Pvt. Ltd., M/s Dhingra Motors, M/s Gabriel India Limited, M/s Asia Investment Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Purolator India Limited. In support of this contention, counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in CWP No. 2546 of 2006 titled as Smt. Raj Bala vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 14.12.2006 (Annexure A-37). Civil Appeal No. 7023 of 2009 preferred by the State of Haryana and Civil Appeal No. 7021 of 2009 preferred by the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (A-38) were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 22.10.2009 by a detailed order, wherein it was held that there can be no discrimination while considering the claim of the similarly placed claimants and violation of the same would be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has also been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No. 17685 of 2005 titled as M/s titled as M/s Imperial Fasteners vs. State of CWP No. 19595 of 2005 and other connected cases 19 Haryana and another decided on 02.05.2007 (A-39), wherein this Court, while considering the claim of the writ petitioners in that writ petition vis-a -vis the released land of Bina Mehra and Naresh Kumar, held the action of the respondents to be not passing the test of equality. Special Leave to Appeal Civil No. 12802 of 2008 preferred by the State of Haryana was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22.09.2008 (Annexure A-40). Referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Hari Ram vs. State of Haryana and others, 2010 (3) SCC 621 and BEML Employees House Building Cooperative Society Ltd., 2005 (9) SCC 248, counsel for the petitioners has prayed that the writ petition preferred by the petitioners be allowed and the