CWP No.17298 of 1995 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.17298 of 1995 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.5.2011 Janta Steel & Metal Cooperative Industrial Society Ltd., Faridabad ......Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Haryana and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Kamal Shegal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on 7.12.1992 proposing to acquire a vast tract of land including 39 kanals 19 marlas of land comprised in Khasra No.47/25/2(3-05), 65/5/2 (3-04), 65/5/5 (4-16), 66/1/1(3-04), 66/1/2 (2-12), 66/10(6-05), 46/21(4-16), 47/25/1(3-17), 47/16(8-0) belonging to the petitioner for a public purpose, namely, for the development and utilization of land as residential, industrial and roads in Sector 31, Faridabad under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. As per the averments made in this writ petition, the petitioner -Society is owner of land measuring 68 kanals 12 marlas (including land measuring 39 kanals 19 marlas which is under acquisition) which was purchased by it in the year 1960. The petitioner-Society was also granted CWP No.17298 of 1995 (O&M) 2 a licence by the Government of India for establishing a new Industrial Undertaking in Delhi for the manufacturing of steel wires on 18.7.1960. The petitioner was also granted permission vide letter dated 5.9.1962 to change the place of industrial unit from Delhi to Punjab. The petitioner started establishing its unit after obtaining the necessary licence and permission in order to start the production. However, before the petitioner's unit could gain momentum, acquisition proceedings to acquire the land of the petitioner on which unit was constructed, were started. Successive notifications under Section 4 of the Act were issued. The petitioner filed objections in pursuance to all these notifications. However, the Government did not issue any notification under Section 6 of the Act. and allowed the scheme for acquisition to be lapsed. Thereafter, notification dated 4.11.1977 was published for development and utilization of land as industrial areas in Sector 31, 32, 35, 36 of Faridabad-Ballabgarh controlled area. By this notification, the respondents proposed to acquire land measuring 188.68 acres of land including the land in dispute. The petitioner preferred objections under Section 5-A of the Act. However, no notice was received regarding the hearing of the objections. Later on, the Government issued notification dated 1.11.1980 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act acquiring the land, including land of the petitioners. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid notifications by filing CWP No.2343 of 1983, in which his dispossession was stayed from the land in question vide order dated 10.5.1983. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondents issued impugned notifications dated 7.12.1992 and 3.12.1993 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act respectively. (Annexures P-4 and P-5) seeking to acquire the land in dispute alongwith other lands for a public purpose, CWP No.17298 of 1995 (O&M) 3 namely, for the development and utilization of land as residential, industrial and roads in sector 31 under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. It is the further case of the petitioner-Society that the land was purchased keeping in view a long drawn programme to extend the industrial activities in a phased manner. The petitioner-Society is manufacturing heavy structural wire, drawing all kinds of buildings hardwares, G.I. Buckets, tractor parts and agricultural implements. Not only this, the petitioner-Society was also supplying heavy transmission wires practically to all the State Electricity Boards in the country. The petitioner was also supplying tanks to the Indian Oil Corporation, a Government of India undertaking. According to the petitioner, a major portion of the land (measuring 68 kanals and 12 marlas) had already been utilized in factory, sheds, construction of the stores, office block and other allied sheds and servants quarters. Heavy machinery has been installed. Area where the petitioner's factory is situated, is a commercial complex. It is the case of the petitioner that acquisition of land in dispute vide impugned notifications (Annexures P-4 and P-5) is a blatant act of stark discrimination, hit by the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in as much as the land in dispute is located in Sector 31, Faridabad in which sector commercial development is the purpose of acquisition of land thereof, whereas the land is surrounded by industries and commercial establishment. According to the petitioner, the land of other commercial and industrial establishments which are abutting the land in dispute have been released from the acquisition is apparent from Shijra-cum-survey plan Annexure P-1. It is the further case of the petitioner that the disputed land is a part of the main factory of the petitioner-Society which abuts the National Highway and is the only land which is being acquired whereas all other abutting and contiguous CWP No.17298 of 1995 (O&M) 4 commercial and industrial establishments have been released from acquisition. Upon notice, the respondents have filed written statement denying the allegations of discrimination. It has been further submitted that the impugned notifications have been issued/published in accordance with law and after adopting due procedure. The petitioner had filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act. Notice of hearing of objection was served. The Objector did not turn up at the time of hearing. There was no construction in existence over the land in dispute at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and only a boundary wall of C class construction was in existence. The respondents could not release the land of the petitioner as it was felt that the land in question was necessary to be acquired for proper planning and development of the area. It was denied that land of the other land owners similarly situated to that of the petitioner was exempted from acquisition. It was stated that no discrimination has been made against the petitioner and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. It was further submitted in the written statement that notification dated 7.12.1992 was issued under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of 28.32 acres of land of village Mewla Maharajpur. At the time of issuance of notification dated 3.12.1993 under Section 6 the Act, land measuring 0.28 acre was exempted from acquisition as the same was wrongly notified under Section 4 of the Act and was not under planning and thus, land measuring 28.04 acres was included in the notification under Section 6 of the Act. It was specifically stated that the land which has been excluded from acquisition could not be adjusted in the lay out plan of Sector-31 and was out of the planning of the aforesaid Sector. The petitioner has made false allegations with mala fide intentions. It was also stated that the factory of the petitioner has been shown over the land comprised in CWP No.17298 of 1995 (O&M) 5 Khasra no.65//8 and the same was not acquired vide award dated 27.11.1995. Thus, the acquisition was made in accordance with law and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings and other documents placed on record of the case. From the facts established on record, it emerges that impugned notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of land measuring 28.32 acres was issued and land measuring 0.28 acres only was exempted, as the same was out of planning area of Sector-31, Faridabad and the remaining land measuring 28.04 acres was notified under Section 6 of the Act and accordingly, the award was passed on 27.11.1995 acquiring the said land, which includes 39 kanals 19 marlas of land belonging to the petitioner. Thus, it cannot be argued that land of similarly situated persons was exempted. It is also relevant to mention at this stage that though the petitioner alleges huge construction over his acquired land which has been denied by the respondents, yet the fact remains that there is no documentary evidence on record to show the construction of the petitioner over the acquired land belonging to him. As per pleadings, the petitioner had purchased the land in dispute in the year 1960 and was granted licence for running an industrial unit vide Annexures P-2 and P-3 on 18.7.1960 and 5.9.1962 and thereafter, he had constructed a factory. However, in the revenue record placed on record by the petitioner as Annexure P-6/1, there is no mention of construction except Khasra No.65/8(7-15) in which a factory has been shown. Not only this, no photograph of the alleged construction has been placed on record of the case to show the huge construction raised by the petitioner as alleged in the acquired land. No doubt, the petitioner has filed replication to the averments made in the written statement by the CWP No.17298 of 1995 (O&M) 6 respondents, however, except controverting the aforesaid averments by way of replication, the petitioner has not placed on record any evidence/document to establish that construction as averred by him exists in acquired land, at the spot. Not only this, the petitioner has not even placed on record any drawing or sanctioned site plan of his factory in support of his aforesaid argument. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that there existed no construction over the acquired land at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the land in question was very much needed for the industrial activity of the petitioner as it was manufacturing heavy structural wires, tractor parts, agricultural implements etc. and it cannot be said that no activity was being undertaken on the said land and in fact the said land was very much essential for the factory. The aforesaid argument of the petitioner is also liable to be rejected as no evidence has been placed on record by way of production of any expert/project report to support the aforesaid argument to show as to in which manner the vacant land was being utilized or is essential. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondents in acquiring his land is discriminatory, as the land of other factories surrounding the land in dispute have been released from acquisition, after issuance of Section 6 notification, is again without any merit. Despite the fact that the petitioner has placed reliance on memos Annexure P-12 and 13 to show certain release orders by the Government, however, the same could not be connected with the impugned notifications. Not only this, the petitioner could not show any evidence to establish the fact that land of the surrounding industrial units CWP No.17298 of 1995 (O&M) 7 was ever acquired. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in fact, the respondents have left the lands of the surrounding industrial units from acquisition and therefore, the same was discriminatory. We cannot accept the said argument, as it was for the respondent-Authorities to acquire the land as per their need and in case the land of other persons has not been included in Section 4 notification, it cannot be said that the same was discriminatory. The reliance of learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgments of the Hon'ble Court in Beml Employees House Building Cooperative Society Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and others (2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases 248 and Hari Ram and another v. State of Haryana and others (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 621 is also misplaced because in the aforesaid cases, a finding was recorded that the petitioners were treated with hostile discrimination as the State Government had failed to show any rationale distinction between the persons whose land was acquired and the other land owners whose lands were excluded from acquisition. There is nothing on record to prove the mala fide intentions of the respondents to acquire the land of the petitioner alone. Moreover, it is the specific case of the respondents that construction area of the factory has been left out of acquisition. No other point has been urged. No merit. Dismissed (JASBIR SINGH) (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE JUDGE May 18, 2011 ps