Back
1998(4) Supreme 327
Supreme Court of India
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
M.M. Punchhi, CJI, K.T. Thomas and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
M/s. Labha Ram & Sons & Ors. etc. -Appellants
versus
State of Punjab & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2505 of 1998
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 3610 of 1997)
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 2506-07 of 1998
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 17058-59 of 1997)
Decided on 30-4-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, R.K. Jain, Sr. Advocate, Neeraj K Jain, Manish Mohan, Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Ms. Madhu Moolchandani and R.S. Sodhi, Advocates.
Held : The land for establishment of new Mandi is not to generate revenue for the State. It may be a laudable object for the State to earn revenues in the process but that could not be the sole or even the main purpose of acquiring land. New Mandis are established because of increase in business transactions and congestion in the old Mandis and for other such objects. (Para 14)
It is easy to contend that the existing traders can still operate from their old places but then for the conduct of their business for sale of agricultural produce they have to come to new Mandi. It would mean that they have to come to the new Mandis for conduct of their routine business but for rudimentary business they could continue to do the same at old places. The fact remains that any trader would like to conduct his business of sale and purchase of agricultural produce at the platform close to his shop. (Para 15)
We do not suggest that government should give preference to the erstwhile dealers by providing free allotment of buildings or plots nor to fix a rate which is below the reserved price. It is open to the Government to fix up any rate above the reserved price for such licensed dealers, of course such fixation should not be at unreasonable rates. (Para 16)
We are, therefore, of the view that the decision of the three Judge Bench in Prem Chand Trilok Chand requires no re-thinking. Hence, we direct the respondents to provide preference to the appellants in the matter of allotment of building or plot in the light of the observations made above. (Para 17)
Held finally : Appeals are thus allowed and the impugned judgments are set aside. (Para 18)
Judgment
Thomas, J.-Leave granted.
2. Appellants are dealers in food-grains having their business places at two certain localities in Ferozepur District (Punjab). Appellants in one appeal are dealers at Guru Har Sahai and appellants in the other appeals are dealers at Talwandi. According to them, they have been doing business at the old market areas in those localities for over fifty years and the State Government have declared such places as “market area” as per the provisions of Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1961 (For short `the Markets Act’). Those areas attained much development with many facilities due to increased governmental activities.
3. With the enactment of Punjab New Mandi Township (Development and Regulation) Act, 1960 (for short ‘Mandi Township Act’) powers have been conferred on the State Government to create and declare new Market (Mandi) Townships. As per Section 3 of that Act, the State Government have power to sell, lease or otherwise transfer either by allotment or auction or otherwise, any land or building in the new Mandi Township on such terms and conditions as the Government may deem fit to impose.
4. In the year 1992 Government decided to create a new Mandi Complex at Guru Har Sahai and another at Talwandi. Lands were acquired by Government for that purpose and buildings were constructed for providing the infrastructure to the new market areas. The immediate impact of creation of such new market townships on the appellants was that they had to move their business from the existing market areas to the new township in order to prevent closure of their business. Resultantly all of them became anxious to get accommodation in the respective new market areas but they are told to stand in the queue along with all the new comers and compete with them in the open auction.
5. On earlier occasions when such new Mandi townships were created the Government had provided some amellorative reliefs to the existing traders by fixing concessional rates as for them in respect of the plots or buildings in the new Market areas. In 1985 Government issued a circular stating that “grain shops, subzi and food stall/booths will be allotted to Arhtis (traders) in all the new Mandi area established and developed by the colonization department on 25% above the reserved price”, of course subject to certain other terms and conditions. But Government did not continue with such reliefs behind afforded to the existing traders for long. This is reflected in a later circular issued by the Government that stalls/plots would be auctioned in open and any one could compete and the highest bidder would be preferred for allotment.
6. Government in the present situation also entrusted the work of allotment of stalls/plots to the Colonization Department which in turn took a decision to auction such plots/stall in the new Mandi complex without providing any concession for the existing traders despite they being badly effected by the establishment of new complex. Appellants, therefore, filed writ petitions in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for issuing necessary directions to the respondents. But these writ petitions were dismissed Hence these appeals.
7. Shri R.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel argued for the appellants that if the existing traders and the new-comers are placed on equal position between them for securing allotment of stalls/plots in the new Market Area that will in effect amount to treating claimants unequally which would offend Article 14 of the Constitution. He also contended that the consequences which had befallen the appellants on account of creation of the new Mandi included their virtual displacement from the place where they established themselves over the years and they are compelled to abandon their existing trading places. According to the counsel, if they have to contest along with the new-comers for getting accommodation in the new Mandi, it would only be at the risk of substantial impairment of
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
