Case: M/S MODEL ECONOMIC TEWNSHIP LTD Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR

Urban Estate, Haryana for hearing with regard to land acquisition pertaining to Village Sihi Hadbast no. 108, Tehsil Manesar, District Gurgaon/Rewari. This land acquisition arose out of a notification under sec. 4 dated 07.08.2013 and notification under sec. 6 dated 05.08.2014. This hearing was scheduled to be held on 03.08.2016. It was during this hearing on 03.08.2016 that the representative of the Petitioner, Shri Satyawan, came to know about the decision of the Hon?ble High Court dated 24.05.2016 in Moti Sagar & Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. (RFA no. 1580 of 2012) filed by the other landowners. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner?s application under section 28A and the hearing held on 03.08.2016 pertaining to Nemita Commercial Private Limited was heard in the same office of the Land Acquisition Collector. Thereafter, the Petitioner contacted Shri Shailendra Jain, Sr. Adv. who had also argued on behalf of the writ petitioners in Moti Sagar and engaged him to argue the writ petition bearing C.W.P. No. 23688 of 2016 (O&M) challenging the order dated 06.03.2014 whereby the application under section 28A filed by the petitioner was disposed off. English translation and true copy of the notice dated 04.07.2016 are being annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE ‘B? (pages 11 to 13). In support, the affidavit of the aforesaid representative of the Petitioner, Shri Satyawan is also filed along with the present affidavit. (d)When was the writ petition filed in the High Court? Response: The petitioner had filed its writ petition on 15.11.2016.? 7. Relying on the decision of this Court in Bharatsing s/o. Gulabsingh Jakhad and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2018) 11 SCC 92 it is contended by the petitioner that the Collector ought to have kept the application under Section 28A of the Act pending till the appeals were decided and that for the failure of the Collector on that count, the petitioner ought not to be put to prejudice. It is, therefore, submitted that the order dated 06.03.2014 be set aside; the entire exercise under Section 28A be undertaken de novo keeping in mind the compensation as awarded by the High Court (as scaled by this Court later). 8. In Bharatsing 1 the award was passed on 04.06.1977. The Reference Court allowed enhancement vide decision dated 01.10.1992, whereafter application under Section 28A of the Act was preferred on 31.12.1992. Said application was decided on 25.10.2000 that is almost eight years after the application was preferred. Around this time, cross appeals preferred by the landholders as well as the State against the decision of the Reference Court were pending in the High Court. These appeals were disposed of by the High Court on 23.03.2009 granting compensation at an enhanced rate of Rs.18000 per acre. Soon thereafter, second application under Section 28A of the Act was preferred on 27.05.2009 seeking benefit under the judgment of the High Court dated 23.03.2009. This second application came to be dismissed by the High Court. This Court affirmed the view that second application under Section 28A could not be preferred but found that the disposal of the first application under Section 28A on 25.10.2000 was not in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in Babua Ram vs. State of U.P . (1995) 2 SCC 689 and other M/S. Model Economic Township Ltd. Vs. Land Acquisition Collector 9 subsequent cases. In the facts of the case, this Court, therefore directed that the original application preferred on 31.12.1992 be considered afresh.9. During the pendency of the present matter, this Court had summoned the original record to apprise itself as to the circumstances in which the application under Section 28A of the Act was taken up for consideration by the Collector. The record indicates that the Collector was given to understand that no appeal or further challenge was pending consideration before any superior court and that the matter had attained finality.10. It is neither the case of the petitioner nor it is even remotely contended that despite being aware of such pending challenge, the Collector had proceeded with the matter and decided the application under Section 28A. It is also not the case that the petitioner had made the Collector aware or brought it to the notice of the office about pendency of such matter/further challenge. The petitioner approached the High Court on 15.11.2016 only after the compensation was enhanced by the High Court to the level of Rs.2,80,00,000/- per acre in respect of comparable lands vide judgment dated 24.5.2016. Again, there is nothing in the petition as to why the petitioner took so much time to realise that the course undertaken by the Collector was not in keeping with the principles laid down by this Court. Looking to the profile of the petitioner which is a limited company, it can certainly be said to be having resources to equip itself with adequate knowledge on the front. The explanation offered by the petitioner in the affidavit pursuant to the direction issued on 06.02.2019, in our view, is not satisfactory. The explanation that the petitioner became aware for the first time on 03.08.2016 does not appear to be correct and reliable. Again, if Shri Satyawan who swore the affidavit as whole- time Director of the petitioner-company, was aware on 03.08.2016 that the compensation stood enhanced by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 24.05.2016, there is no reason why the filing of the writ petition was delayed till 15.11.2016. For an entity who held more than 10% of the land under acquisition the way it conducted itself does not inspire any confidence. The idea under Section 28A is certainly to extend benefit of equal compensation to landholders who, for some reasons had not preferred appropriate applications for Reference in time but for a company having profile such as the petitioner, inaction on the front followed by delay in filing petition in the High Court, in our view, disentitles the petitioner from claiming any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]8. In Bharatsing 1 the award was passed on 04.06.1977. The Reference Court allowed enhancement vide decision dated 01.10.1992, whereafter application under Section 28A of the Act was preferred on 31.12.1992. Said application was decided on 25.10.2000 that is almost eight years after the application was preferred. Around this time, cross appeals preferred by the landholders as well as the State against the decision of the Reference Court were pending in the High Court. These appeals were disposed of by the High Court on 23.03.2009 granting compensation at an enhanced rate of Rs.18000 per acre. Soon thereafter, second application under Section 28A of the Act was preferred on 27.05.2009 seeking benefit under the judgment of the High Court dated 23.03.2009. This second application came to be dismissed by the High Court. This Court affirmed the view that second application under Section 28A could not be preferred but found that the disposal of the first application under Section 28A on 25.10.2000 was not in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in Babua Ram vs. State of U.P . (1995) 2 SCC 689  and other M/S. Model Economic Township Ltd. Vs. Land Acquisition Collector 9 subsequent cases. In the facts of the case, this Court, therefore directed that the original application preferred on 31.12.1992 be considered afresh.9. During the pendency of the present matter, this Court had summoned the original record to apprise itself as to the circumstances in which the application under Section 28A of the Act was taken up for consideration by the Collector. The record indicates that the Collector was given to understand that no appeal or further challenge was pending consideration before any superior court and that the matter had attained finality.10. It is neither the case of the petitioner nor it is even remotely contended that despite being aware of such pending challenge, the Collector had proceeded with the matter and decided the application under Section 28A. It is also not the case that the petitioner had made the Collector aware or brought it to the notice of the office about pendency of such matter/further challenge. The petitioner approached the High Court on 15.11.2016 only after the compensation was enhanced by the High Court to the level of Rs.2,80,00,000/- per acre in respect of comparable lands vide judgment dated 24.5.2016. Again, there is nothing in the petition as to why the petitioner took so much time to realise that the course undertaken by the Collector was not in keeping with the principles laid down by this Court. Looking to the profile of the petitioner which is a limited company, it can certainly be said to be having resources to equip itself with adequate knowledge on the front. The explanation offered by the petitioner in the affidavit pursuant to the direction issued on 06.02.2019, in our view, is not satisfactory. The explanation that the petitioner became aware for the first time on 03.08.2016 does not appear to be correct and reliable. Again, if Shri Satyawan who swore the affidavit as whole- time Director of the petitioner-company, was aware on 03.08.2016 that the compensation stood enhanced by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 24.05.2016, there is no reason why the filing of the writ petition was delayed till 15.11.2016. For an entity who held more than 10% of the land under acquisition the way it conducted itself does not inspire any confidence. The idea under Section 28A is certainly to extend benefit of equal compensation to landholders who, for some reasons had not preferred appropriate applications for Reference in time but for a company having profile such as the petitioner, inaction on the front followed by delay in filing petition in the High Court, in our view, disentitles the petitioner from claiming any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.