Back
2007(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 2286
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Garewal
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajai Lamba
CWP No. 2722 of 2004
M/s Balwant Singh Sher Singh Rice Mills, Karnal
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 15/05/2007}
(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4—Acquisition of Land—Public Purpose—Unauthorised Construction--Construction raised without taking permission from the authorities to change land use—Site plans not got approved—Construction, therefore, is unauthorised. (Para 32)
(C) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4—Constitution of India, 1950, , Article 226—Acquisition of Land—Public purpose—Writ jurisdiction—Judicial review—Acquisition is for justifiable reason—The Court in writ jurisdiction ordinarily is not expected to review the decision of the State in this regard. (Para 26)
(D) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 5 A—Objections—Recommendations made by LAO have not been accepted—The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final—It is for the Government to determine—The recommendations were required to be considered in the light of the notified public purpose. (Para 13)
(E) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4, 5-A—Release of Land—Recommendations of the LAO to release the land not accepted by the appropriate government—No jurisdictional error in not accepting the recommendations of the LAO. (Para 15)
(F) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4—Acquisition of Land—It is the prerogative of the State to choose the land that is to be acquired.(Para 46)
(G) Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 4--Acquisition of land—Priority in the matter of allotment—The land acquired for construction and development Industrial Estate, Karnal—Petitioners have been running their Industrial or commercial establishments for a considerable period—It is appropriate to direct that in case the petitioners make application for the allotment of land, the respondents shall consider such applications and give them priority in the matter of allotment, provided they fulfill the conditions for such allotment. (Para 46, 47)
(H) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4—Public purpose—Public interest must give precedence to personal purpose & interest.
(I) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4—Acquisition of land—Commercial and Industrial activities are mushrooming without any planning—This , in itself, justifies the acquisition proceeding through which the area is to be developed as an industrial estate. (Para 41)
Ajai Lamba, J. - This judgment shall dispose of 11 writ petition viz. CWP No. 2722 of 2004 titled ‘M/s Balwant Singh Sher Singh Rice Mills, Karnal v. State of Haryana & Another’, CWP No. 1956 of 2004 titled M/s Sharma Agro Industries, Kamal Vs. State of Haryana & Another’, CWP No. 660 of 2005 titled ‘Inder Chaudhary Vs. State of Haryana & Another’, CWP NO.7144 of2005 titled ‘Ranjit Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Another’, CWP No.8884 of 2005 titled ‘Harjinder Pal Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Another’, CWP No.1812 of 2005 titled ‘Mandeep Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Others’, CWP No.6299 of 2004 titled ‘M/s Indian Discs Corporation, Karnal Vs. State of Haryana & Others’, CWP No.13062 of 2004 titled ‘Harbhajan Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Others’, CWP No.8924 of 2005 titled ‘Harminder Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Others’, CWP No.1706 of 2005 titled ‘Kanwarjit Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Others’ and CWP No.2723 of 2005 titled ‘Vijay Kumar Singla & Another Vs. State of Haryana & Another’ as they involve common facts and questions of law as the same acquisition proceedings have been challenged.
2. The petitions have been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing Notification dated 27.11.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act issued on 14.11.2003. Vide the said Notifications, the respondents have notified the land for acquisition for a public purpose; namely, for the construction and development of Industrial Estate, Karnal, and laying of Sewerage and Storm Water Drainage in Sector 3, Karnal. The land falls in Kasba Karnal, Tehsil and District Karnal.
3. In challenge to the acquisition proceedings, the first argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Land Acquisition Collector had recommended release of land while dealing with objections under Section 5-A of the Act, which have not been accepted, therefore, the acquisition of land i.e. declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act is liable to be quashed.
4. The second argument raised is that the public purpose itself does not exist and has already been achieved as a sewerage treatment plant already exists. In support of this argument, layout plan has been referred to, to say that no sewerage treatment plant is shown in the plan. It has also been argued that the action of the respondents is totally whimsical, without any application of mind and without any executive exercise, therefore, the same is rendered arbitrary and is liable to be quashed. The petitioners have been running various kinds of industry, commercial establishments, auto repair shops, etc. The purpose of acquisition viz. Setting up of an Industrial Estate already stands achieved. The existing industry would be displaced by the impugned action, as such, the same is arbitrary. .
5. It is further pleaded that the adjoining land has not been acquired and, therefore, the power vested in the respondents has been misused, with mala fide intention so as to displace the existing industry.
6. With regard to the first argument, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent-State that the objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act are required to be heard by the Land Acquisition Collector whereupon recommendation is made. It, however, remains the prerogative of the Government to either accept the recommendations or not.
7. With regard to the other argument that the public purpose does not exist, it has been pleaded on behalf of the respondent State that the acquisition of land is not only for Sewerage and Storm Water Drainage but also for construction and development of Industrial Estate, Kamal. In this regard, reference has been made not only to the plan appended by the petitioners but also to the site plan, appended as Annexure R-l/1 with the written statement filed in CWP 2722 of 2004 titled ‘M/s Balw
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
