Case: M/S.Anand Buttons Ltd Vs. State Of Haryana

Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 and the Rules framed thereunder, the said illegality appears to have been compounded and the construction had been regularized. 10. The affidavits filed by the Director of Industries and the District Town Planner also suggest that the acquisition of land was for setting up of Phase-IV of Industrial Estate, Kundli, which work was being supervised by the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation appointed as the nodal agency by the State Government for rapid industrialization of the State. The High Court pointed out that, in these circumstances, the failure of the State Government itself to file a return would not be fatal, as the nodal agency, who was entrusted with the work, had filed affidavits of the competent officers, who were in the know of facts. It also came to the conclusion that the action of the Director of Industries, Haryana, calling upon for comments from the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, and the action of the State Government in considering their comments before taking a final decision for issuance of the notification under Section 6 of the Act, was neither vitiated, nor illegal. The High Court also noticed that the land of the present appellants was sandwiched between Phase-I and Phase-II of the Industrial Estate, Kundli. Consequently, leaving a part of the open had would jeopardize the planned development of the industrial establishment. 11. This reasoning of the High Court cannot be faulted for the simple reason that the authority, who has to carry out the planned development of the industrial estate, is in the best position to judge as to which land can be exempted from the acquisition without jeopardizing the development scheme. It is not possible for the court to sit in appeal over the exercise of such satisfaction by the authority vested with the task of implementing the development plan. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants urged that the decision taken for exempting M/s. Dinar Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., M/s. Amar Elastomers (P) Ltd. and M/s. K.C. Fibre Ltd. was not a principled one and that there was no uniform yardstick applied for exemption of the said units from acquisition. It was urged that, although the State Government had ostensibly decided to exempt the said three units on the basis of construction put up and industrial units being set up, this was really not true in the case of these three units. In our view, it is unnecessary for us to enter into this controversy. Even if we assume that the three units, who were exempted, did not qualify under the standard adopted by the State Government for exemption, at the highest, it would make the exemption granted to them vulnerable. None of them was made party to the writ petitions filed before the High Court, nor was any relief claimed against them. Even assuming that the exemption granted to the said three units was erroneous and illegal, Article 14 does not mandate that the appellants should be granted similar illegal and unjustified relief. As said by this Court in Union of India and another vs. International Trading Co. and another (2003) 5 SCC 437 ) to which one of us, (Shivaraj vs. Patil, J.) was a party, (vide Para 13). ... It is not necessary to deal with that aspect because two wrongs do not make one right. A party cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another case direction should be given for doing another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right, but would be perpetuating another wrong. In such matters there is no discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment on the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution of India (in short the Constitution) cannot be pressed into service in such cases. What the concept of equal treatment presupposes is existence of similar legal foothold. It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs on a par. Even if hypothetically it is accepted that a wrong has been committed in some other cases by introducing a concept of negative equality the respondents cannot strengthen their case. They have to establish strength of their case on some other basis and not by claiming negative equality. 13. It is trite law that not only land but also structure on land can be acquired under the Act. As to whether in a given set of circumstances certain land should be exempted from acquisition only for the reason that some construction had been carried out, is a matter of policy, and not of law. If after considering all the circumstances, the State Government has taken the view that exemption of the lands of the lands of the appellants would render askew the development scheme of the industrial estate, it is not possible for the High Court or this Court to interfere with the satisfaction of the concerned authorities. We see no ground on which the appellants could have maintained that their lands should be exempted from acquisition. Even if three of the parties had been wrongly exempted from acquisition, that gives no right to the appellants to seek similar relief. 14. It is rightly pointed out by the High Court that, merely because a representation was made by the Director, Town and Country Planning, that upon gift of certain land to the Gram Panchayat for widening of the passage, permission for change of user of land would be granted, such a promise is not one capable of being enforced against the State Government. The High Court has rightly pointed out that, if the appellants are so desirous, they may seek invalidation of the gifts in favour of the Gram Panchayat on the ground of failure of the Director, Town and Country Planning to fulfil his commitment. That, however, does not render the acquisition proceedings illegal. 15. No other ground has been made out. In our view, therefore, no fault can be found with the judgment rendered by the Division Bench.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]8. The High Court has carefully considered and evaluated the contentions urged by thes in the light of the material placed before it. The High Court noticed that the cases of all the seven units were examined and recommended for exemption from acquisition by the Land Acquisition Collector, who was of the view that, each one of the units had taken considerable steps towards establishment of an industrial unit. The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Sonepat, after examining the individual cases, reported that the facts found in the report of the Land Acquisition Collector were correct, but made no recommendation with regard to the acquisition proceedings. He reported : all the parties have been heard in person except the representative of M/s. Anand Buttons Ltd., who did not turn up for verification of the facts on the given date. The General Manager, District Industries Centre pointed out: all the parties have expressed their desire to set up an industry on this land within a period of two years, if released. But none of them has so far taken up a tangible step on the land. The land of all these parties but together, is surrounded by Industrial Area already existing at HSIDC, Kundli. These parties have also stated that they would not sell the plot further but will themselves set up an industry on it. In the case of M/s. Kundli Agro Pvt. Ltd., however he suggested that its case deserves a sympathetical attitude, in view of the land of 3 Kanals and 11 Marlas gifted by it for making a path way. Finally, it was reported, keeping all these things in view, the Headquarter may take a suitable action9. The State Government did not file an affidavit in reply to oppose the writ petitions, but instead, authorized the Director of Industries and the District Town Planner of the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation to do so. The affidavits filed by these officers showed that M/s. Dinar Spinning Mills, M/s. Industrial Roller Co. (who were the subsequent purchasers of land from M/s. Amar Elastomers) and M/s. K.C. Fibres, had, not only constructed the factory building after obtaining the permission, but had also started manufacturing of goods. In all other cases, including the case of M/s. Anand Buttons Ltd., there were no tangible steps taken for erection of factory building, much less had industrial production commenced. The State Government took the view that there was justifiable difference between the cases of M/s. Dinar Spinning Mills, M/s. Industrial Roller Co., M/s. K.C. Fibres on the one hand and those of the present appellants on the other. Although, M/s. K.C. Fibres was alleged to have carried out a construction in violation of the provisions of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 and the Rules framed thereunder, the said illegality appears to have been compounded and the construction had been regularized10. The affidavits filed by the Director of Industries and the District Town Planner also suggest that the acquisition of land was for setting up ofV of Industrial Estate, Kundli, which work was being supervised by the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation appointed as the nodal agency by the State Government for rapid industrialization of the State. The High Court pointed out that, in these circumstances, the failure of the State Government itself to file a return would not be fatal, as the nodal agency, who was entrusted with the work, had filed affidavits of the competent officers, who were in the know of facts. It also came to the conclusion that the action of the Director of Industries, Haryana, calling upon for comments from the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, and the action of the State Government in considering their comments before taking a final decision for issuance of the notification under Section 6 of the Act, was neither vitiated, nor illegal. The High Court also noticed that the land of the present appellants was sandwiched betweenI of the Industrial Estate, Kundli. Consequently, leaving a part of the open had would jeopardize the planned development of the industrial establishment11. This reasoning of the High Court cannot be faulted for the simple reason that the authority, who has to carry out the planned development of the industrial estate, is in the best position to judge as to which land can be exempted from the acquisition without jeopardizing the development scheme. It is not possible for the court to sit in appeal over the exercise of such satisfaction by the authority vested with the task of implementing the development planEven if we assume that the three units, who were exempted, did not qualify under the standard adopted by the State Government for exemption, at the highest, it would make the exemption granted to them vulnerable. None of them was made party to the writ petitions filed before the High Court, nor was any relief claimed against them. Even assuming that the exemption granted to the said three units was erroneous and illegal, Article 14 does not mandate that the appellants should be granted similar illegal and unjustified relief13. It is trite law that not only land but also structure on land can be acquired under the Act. As to whether in a given set of circumstances certain land should be exempted from acquisition only for the reason that some construction had been carried out, is a matter of policy, and not of law. If after considering all the circumstances, the State Government has taken the view that exemption of the lands of the lands of the appellants would render askew the development scheme of the industrial estate, it is not possible for the High Court or this Court to interfere with the satisfaction of the concerned authorities. We see no ground on which the appellants could have maintained that their lands should be exempted from acquisition. Even if three of the parties had been wrongly exempted from acquisition, that gives no right to the appellants to seek similar relief14. It is rightly pointed out by the High Court that, merely because a representation was made by the Director, Town and Country Planning, that upon gift of certain land to the Gram Panchayat for widening of the passage, permission for change of user of land would be granted, such a promise is not one capable of being enforced against the State Government. The High Court has rightly pointed out that, if the appellants are so desirous, they may seek invalidation of the gifts in favour of the Gram Panchayat on the ground of failure of the Director, Town and Country Planning to fulfil his commitment. That, however, does not render the acquisition proceedings illegal15. No other ground has been made out. In our view, therefore, no fault can be found with the judgment rendered by the Division Bench.