Case: M/S V.K.M.Kattha Industries P.Ltd Vs. State Of Haryana

served. In view of the same, according to learned senior counsel, the appellant-Company was deprived of its valuable right to file objections under Section 5A of the Act. He further contended that, it is an opportunity given to the land owners or person in possession of lands to make a representation under Section 5A of the Act. To put it clear, the purpose of publication of the notification is two-fold, first, to ensure that adequate publicity is given so that land owners and persons interested will have an opportunity to file their objections under Section 5A of the Act, and second, to give the land owners/occupants a notice that it shall be lawful for any officer authorized by the government to carry out the activities enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act. This position has been reiterated in several decisions of this Court vide Khub Chand & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (1967) 1 SCR 120 , J&K Housing Board and Anr. vs. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul & Ors., (2011) 10 SCC 714 and Usha Stud & Agricultural Farms P. Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors., (2013) 4 SCC 210. 15) Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent-State asserted that the authorities have complied with all the three modes of publication. To test the above statements, we verified the written statement of Shri L.B. Verma, District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Sonipat filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 herein before the High Court. Though in para 6, it is stated that the notification was published in two daily newspapers, namely, National Herald dated 02.01.2006 in English and Amar Ujala in Hindi dated 31.12.2005 but there is no whisper about the publication of the substance of the notification in the locality as provided under Section 4(1) of the Act. Except the above said written statement dated 15.11.2007, no other material such as counter affidavit or reply had been projected before the High Court as well as before this Court in support of their stand. In fact, on 09.08.2010, when the matter was called for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that “in view of the counter filed before the High Court, no separate counter is being filed here”. In view of the above, it is clear that in spite of knowing the specific ground raised by the appellant about the non-publication of the substance of the notification as prescribed under the Act in the locality concerned, neither the State nor the Land Acquisition Collector availed the opportunity of filing reply refuting the same. In such circumstances, we have no other option except to hold that there was no publication of the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the locality which is held to be mandatory. It is also relevant to point out that by effecting such publication in the locality, it would be possible for the person in possession, namely, either the owner or lessee to make their representation/objection in the enquiry under Section 5A. In addition to the same, such person “owner or occupier” is entitled to file their objections within 30 days from the date of publication in the locality and by non-publication of the same in the locality as provided under the Act, the owner or occupier loses his valuable right. For these reasons also, the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed. 16) Coming to the contention raised by learned senior counsel that the appellant-Company itself is running an industry on the date of the notification, we are of the view that there is no justification in acquiring a running industrial unit for industrialization of the area. By placing acceptable materials, the appellant-Company has demonstrated that the construction at the site in question is A-Class construction and the fact that Rector No. 75 itself, which is a substantial part of the area, has been left out from the acquisition, the impugned notifications qua the running industrial unit cannot be sustained in law. The appellant-Company, in support of the same, has also placed copy of the sanctioned building plan of the Company dated 18.03.1994, copy of the sale deed dated 10.05.1994, copy of the communication of the Director, Urban Estates Development Haryana, Chandigarh dated 23.03.1982, copy of the certificate by the Haryana Financial Corporation dated 14.05.2003, copy of no objection certificate from the Haryana State Pollution Control Board dated 17.10.1996 and copy of lease deed in favour of M/s Anand Agro Products dated 05.05.2003. On going through the materials placed, we are satisfied that the appellant-Company has established that it is a running industrial unit even prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act and the appellant has established its case on this ground also. 17) Coming to the last contention, viz., exclusion of more than 76 acres of land, in the writ petition as well as in the grounds of appeal, the appellant has furnished details of the area released from acquisition in Rector-75 itself which is as under: S.No.Name of industrialConcernKhasra No.Area left fromAcquisition 1.Natraj StationeryProducts Pvt. Ltd.75/11/2/22/1312/2/1--1-61-1 2.Moja shoes (Pvt) Ltd.75/11/276/16?1-60-6 3.Haryana Coir (P) Ltd.75/12/2/175/13/111/2/112/1/175/12/2/12-144-01-41-62-14 As rightly pointed out, if the appellant-Company had the opportunity of participating in the enquiry under Section 5A, it would be open to the Company to make a representation for exclusion like others and there would be every possibility for the State Government to accede to the request since the appellant-Company is running an industry which is similar to the public purpose for which lands were being acquired. During the course of hearing, learned senior counsel for the appellant has also brought to our notice an approved sketch about the excluded lands and location of the appellant-Company which is on the extreme corner of the acquired lands. In other words, even if the Government or the authority concerned excludes the lands of the appellant-Company, there would not be any difficulty in executing the scheme. The said claim of the appellant is acceptable. 18)

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]In the case on hand, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the official gazette on 21.12.2005, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 29.12.2006 and the award was passed on 15.07.2007. Challenging the said award, a writ petition was filed by the appellant-Company on 20.08.2007, i.e. within 5 weeks of the passing of the award. It is the assertion of the appellant-Company that possession of the said land is still vested with them. Taking note of the above factual scenario and of the fact that in the decisions relied on by the High Court, there was a huge delay in filing the writ petitions, such as 13 years, 21 years, 32 years and 2 years after taking over possession, hence, in the light of the fact that the appellant-Company has filed the writ petition within a reasonable time, namely, within 5 weeks of the passing of the award, we are of the view that all the 4 decisions referred to and relied on by the High Court are inapplicable to the facts of the present case. On this ground itself, the impugned order dismissing the writ petition is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we hold that the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein before the High Court cannot be simply dismissed on the ground of delay or laches or filed after passing of the award. The said issue depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and in view of the fact that the appellant has approached the High Court within a reasonable time, it is but proper for the High Court to go into the merits of the claim of the appellant. In normal circumstance, the matter has to go back to the High Court for consideration of various points raised, however, in order to shorten the litigation and of the fact that necessary/required materials are available before this Court, we consider the case of both the parties on merits and give our reasonsAdditional Advocate General appearing for respondent-State asserted that the authorities have complied with all the three modes of publication. To test the above statements, we verified the written statement of Shri L.B. Verma, District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Sonipat filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 herein before the High Court. Though in para 6, it is stated that the notification was published in two daily newspapers, namely, National Herald dated 02.01.2006 in English and Amar Ujala in Hindi dated 31.12.2005 but there is no whisper about the publication of the substance of the notification in the locality as provided under Section 4(1) of the Act. Except the above said written statement dated 15.11.2007, no other material such as counter affidavit or reply had been projected before the High Court as well as before this Court in support of their stand. In fact, on 09.08.2010, when the matter was called for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted thatview of the counter filed before the High Court, no separate counter is being filedIn view of the above, it is clear that in spite of knowing the specific ground raised by the appellant about the non-publication of the substance of the notification as prescribed under the Act in the locality concerned, neither the State nor the Land Acquisition Collector availed the opportunity of filing reply refuting the same. In such circumstances, we have no other option except to hold that there was no publication of the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the locality which is held to be mandatory. It is also relevant to point out that by effecting such publication in the locality, it would be possible for the person in possession, namely, either the owner or lessee to make their representation/objection in the enquiry under Section 5A. In addition to the same, such personis entitled to file their objections within 30 days from the date of publication in the locality and by non-publication of the same in the locality as provided under the Act, the owner or occupier loses his valuable right. For these reasons also, the acquisition proceedings are liable to berightly pointed out, if the appellant-Company had the opportunity of participating in the enquiry under Section 5A, it would be open to the Company to make a representation for exclusion like others and there would be every possibility for the State Government to accede to the request since the appellant-Company is running an industry which is similar to the public purpose for which lands were being acquired. During the course of hearing, learned senior counsel for the appellant has also brought to our notice an approved sketch about the excluded lands and location of the appellant-Company which is on the extreme corner of the acquired lands. In other words, even if the Government or the authority concerned excludes the lands of the appellant-Company, there would not be any difficulty in executing the scheme. The said claim of the appellant is acceptable.