JT 2008 (12) SC 315
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.K. THAKKER & D.K. JAIN, JJ.
ESSCO FABS PVT. LTD. & ANR. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. – RESPONDENTS
THE PANIPAT TEACHERS (RECOGNISED SCHOOLS)HOUSING CO-OPEATIVE SOCIETY LTD. & ANR. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6580 OF 2008 With CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 30 OF 2007
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.15449 of 2004] CIVIL APPEAL NO.6581 OF 2008 With [Arising out of SLP (C) No.15544 of 2004]
Decided on :07/11/2008
B)
JUDGMENT : C.K. THAKKER, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Both these appeals are filed by the appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated April 02, 2004, passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1853 of 2003 and 2077 of 2002.
3. To appreciate the controversy raised in the present appeals, relevant facts in nutshell may be noted.
4. According to the appellant Essco Fabs Pvt. Ltd. (`Essco for short), the Government of Haryana intended to acquire land for public purpose, viz., for utilization of land as residential, commercial and industrial area in Sector Nos. 11, 12 and 25 Part-II by Haryana Urban Development Authority (`HUDA for short). For the said purpose, the Government issued a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) on December 15, 1982. The land mentioned in the said notification situated in village Kheri Nangal was sought to be acquired. A final notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on June 20, 1984. However, the land acquisition proceedings could not be completed within the stipulated period and the notifications lapsed and the land stood released.
5. It was the case of Essco that it bought the land which was sought to be acquired earlier for expansion of its Export Unit. According the appellant, it is engaged in manufacturing and exporting rugs, cushions, bed-spreads, bath mats, fabrics, kitchen towel, aprons, pot holders, gloves, mitten, curtains, napkins, carpets, etc. It is Export Oriented Unit and earns foreign exchange by export of goods manufactured in its unit. In the year 1992, it xported materials over Rs.2 crores. The appellant has stated that on June 6, 1991, it made an application to the Director, Town & Country Planning, Haryana for permission for change of user of land. All necessary documents were appended to the application. The Director, however, vide an order dated September 5, 1991, rejected the permission on several grounds. One of the grounds weighed with the Director for refusing the permission was that the land in question was proposed to be acquired. The appellant has produced a copy of the application as also an order of rejection thereof in the present proceedings. But even thereafter no proceedings for acquisition of land were initiated for many years.
6. On August 1, 2001 i.e. after about twenty years of the first notification of 1982 and nine years after rejection of prayer of the appellant for change of user, the Government of Haryana again issued notification under sub- section (1) of Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of land for the development and utilization for construction of road connecting Sanauli Road with G.T. Road for Sector 25 Part- II B, Urban Estate Panipat by HUDA. The land of the appellant situated in village Kheri Nangal was sought to be included in the notification. Moreover, `urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act was applied and a valuable right of raising objections under Section 5-A of the Act was taken away in an arbitrary manner. On the very next day i.e. on August 2, 2001, final notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued by the Government.
7. It is the case of the appellant that the preliminary notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act was required to be published in the manner laid down in the Act. But it had not been published before issuance of final notification under Section 6 of the Act. The final notification was, therefore, illegal and the appellant could not be deprived of his property in a manner not known to law. The right of the appellant to own, possess and enjoy the property is not merely a Common Law right but also constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution which has a `flavour of fundamental right. The acquisition proceedings, being not in consonance with law were vitiated and liable to be quashed.
8. The appellant, hence, filed Civil Writ Petition No.
REFERRED TO : Nandeshwar Prasad and Anr. V. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors
Mohan Singh and Ors. v.International Airport Authority of India and Ors.
First Land Acquisition Collector and Ors., v. Nirodhi Prakash Gangoli and Anr.
Union of India and Ors. v.Mukesh Hans
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Radhey Shyam Nigam and Ors
State of Haryana and Anr. v. Raghubir Dayal
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.