IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: May 29, 2010 1. C.W.P. No. 21203 of 2008 M/s Airlight Electronics Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents 2. C.W.P. No. 12365 of 2009 M/s Airlight Electronics Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate, Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. AG, Haryana. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for the respondent-HUDA Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for respondent No. 8 (in CWP No. 12365 of 2009) 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 21203 of 2008 and 12365 of 2009 filed by the same petitioner. In CWP No. 21203 of 208, the petitioner has CWP No. 21203 of 2008 & 12365 of 2009 (O&M) challenged acquisition proceedings initiated by issuance of notifications dated 25.1.2008 and 18.3.2008, issued under Sections 4 and 6 read with Section 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act). In the other petition, namely, CWP No. 12365 of 2009, the petitioner has challenged notification dated 5.2.2007, which contains the alignment of the proposed V-2(a) road as given in the final drawing (P-4) made pursuant to the proposals under Head No. 1 “Provision of Additional Road Links between Delhi and Gurgaon” as well as under Head No.4 “Transport and Communication” from Dwarka Residential Complex of Delhi to Palam Vihar, Gurgaon in the Final Development Plan 2021 AD for Gurgaon-Manesar Urban Complex (P-3). A further prayer has been made for quashing order dated 8.7.2009 (P-21), passed by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana, rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has sought a mandamus directing the respondents not to proceed further in accordance with the impugned alignment of the proposed V-2(a) road as given in the Final Drawing and instead to realign the proposed V-2(a) road taking into account the alternative alignment as suggested in the site map Annexure P-25. The respondents filed their replies contesting the claim of the petitioner. However, on 25.5.2010, Mr. Gopal Subramanyam, learned Solicitor General of India appeared and fairly stated that all the industrial units located in the area which are functional, shall be shifted to suitable alternative places. Even the State Government offered to make efforts in respect of those units which were not functional provided they were able to show some evidence concerning their potential to function. Mr. Puneet Bali, learned counsel for the petitioner had accepted the offer but has, however, stated that the modalities have to be worked out with 2 CWP No. 21203 of 2008 & 12365 of 2009 (O&M) regard to locating the industrial site in terms of distance, availability of infrastructure, payment of price and other factors. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 27.5.2010 so that the petitioner may appear before the Director, Town and Country Planning, namely, Shri T.C. Gupta, to work out all those modalities. When the matter came up for consideration on 27.5.2010, the modalities were not yet completed although Shri T.C. Gupta has apprised the Court about the minutes of the meeting held on 26.5.2010, under his chairmanship at Planning Department Haryana, Ayojna Bhawan, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh. After further discussion, we found that certain modalities were still required to be creased out between the parties. Accordingly the hearing was deferred to 28.5.2010 and then to 29.5.2010. It appears that after long discussions the following settlement has been arrived at between the parties:- i) Compensation as per award; ii) Minimum Plot size of 1½ to 2 acres in lieu of existing plot size of the petitioner, which is 3.65 acres in Faridabad as offered in the meeting dated 28th May, 2010 with variation on either side to the extent of 10%; iii) Payment at the minimum reserve price as on 28th May 2010, as per the allotment policy, with a further assurance that no hidden charges of any kind such as external development charges or internal development charges or any other kind of charge, except the land acquisition enhancement awarded by the competent court, will be charged from the petitioner. iv) Payment to be made in 12 equal half yearly interest free instalments with first instalment being treated as margin money; 3 CWP No. 21203 of 2008 & 12365 of 2009 (O&M) v) Physical possession of fully developed plots to be given at the earliest; and vi) Time period of nine months to be granted for relocation after the handing over of the physical possession of the fully developed plot. The settlement has been duly signed by the petitioner. A copy of the aforesaid terms and conditions has been handed over to Mr. Kamal Sehgal, learned State counsel, which is also taken on record as Mark ‘A’. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed to all other conditions. However, with regard to condition No. (ii) it has been agreed that the petitioner shall apply to the competent authority under the Prestigious Plot Scheme at Faridabad or Kundli, which involve minimum investment of Rs. 30 crores, which is to be incurred in phased manner. The application of the petitioner for allotment of minimum plot size of 1½ to 2 acres in lieu of existing plot of the petitioner, measuring 3.65 acres, shall be favourably considered by the competent authority. The petitioner shall apply within a period of 30 days from today and the favourable consideration shall take place within 30 days thereafter. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, learned State counsel while agreeing to the aforesaid settlement, after obtaining instructions from Shri T.C. Gupta, Director Town and Country Planning, has categorically stated that it is strictly one time exception on account of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as precedent for any future case. Mr. Puneet Bali, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, pointed out that since the industrial unit is likely to face financial problems, it would be appropriate if they are paid enhanced compensation also at the earliest. He has further submitted that the petitioners have already filed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the 4 CWP No. 21203 of 2008 & 12365 of 2009 (O&M) Act’), claiming enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Collector, which is pending consideration before the Reference Court at Gurgaon. As a sequel to the above discussion, these petitions are disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties. However, this would be one time exception on account of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as precedent for any future case. We further direct that if any reference application under Section 18 of the Act has been filed in respect of the notification of acquisition of land involved in this case, the Reference Court shall make all efforts to decide the references at the earliest, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned District Judge, Gurgaon. The writ petitions and all miscellaneous applications are disposed of in the above terms. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) May 29, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 5