Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(P&H) 346

2011(2) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 1218
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih
CWP No. 19595 of 2005
Anil Kakkar & Anr.
v.
State of Haryana & Ors.
{Decided on 28/01/2011}

Advocates:
Present:Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. M.L.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners (in CWP Nos. 19369, 20127 of 2005, 807, 842, 911, 952, 1009, 1145 and 1222 of 2006)
Mr. G.K.Chawla, Advocate, (in CWP No. 19091 of 2005)
Mr. N.D.Achint, Advocate,
Mr. C.M.Munjal, Advocate, and Mr. Pawan Malik, Advocate (in CWP Nos. 942, 952, 1090, 1138, 1223, 1377, 1621 and 1650 of 2006)
Mr. Kamaljit Singh Advocate, for Mr. R.P.S. Khosla Advocate.
Mr. Raghuwinder Singh, Advocate and Mr. Vibhav Jain Advocate, for Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate, for HUDA (in CWP No. 7435 of 2006)
Mr. A.K. Pathania, Advocate, for HSIIDC.
Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for HUDA (in CWP Nos. 9308 and 9312 of 2006)
Mr. J.L.Malhotra, Advocate, for respondent No. 8 (in CWP No. 19252 of 2005)
Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

IMPORTANT POINT
Land Acquisition--Release of Land--Claim of the petitioners vis-a-vis the land owners, whose land has been released from acquisition, cannot be distinguished as they are similarly placed.
Land Acquisition--Release of Land--Planned development of the industrial estate cannot be sacrificed merely because some discrimination has been meted out to the petitioners--Integrated planning of the Industrial Sectors has to be kept in view.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.48--Release of Land--Discrimination--Claim of the petitioners vis-a-vis the land owners, whose land has been released from acquisition, cannot be distinguished as they are similarly placed--State cannot adopt different yardstick while considering the claim of similarly placed land owners--Petitions allowed-- However, land of the petitioners cannot be directed to be released as a whole--Planned development of the industrial estate cannot be sacrificed merely because some discrimination has been meted out to the petitioners--Integrated planning of the Industrial Sectors has to be kept in view. (Paras 38, 40 & 41)
       Portion of the lands, which in the lay-out plan form part of the roads/green belts or common sites or public utility services/area, shall not be considered for release--Remaining land of the petitioners be released to them in such a manner that it conforms to the already finalized layout plan of the Industrial Sectors by acquiring the excessive land or by allotting the deficient land as the case may be to bring it within the integrated planning. (Paras 38, 40 & 41)
       (B) Constitution of India, 1950, Art.14--Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.48--Release of Land--Discrimination--Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate an illegality and Courts cannot issue a direction perpetuating such illegality on the ground of discrimination or hardship--Any action contrary to law does not confer any right upon any person for similar treatment--Article 14 provides for positive equality and not negative equality but if the Government, while defending its stand where allegations have been made of discrimination, asserts that the action has been taken in accordance with law, the similarly placed person would be entitled to press for similar relief, if he has been deprived of the same--Government is under obligation to act with substantial fairness and consistency in considering the claim of such persons--It cannot adopt a policy of pick and choose by granting the benefits to some persons and denying the same benefits to others by creating artificial distinction--State is obliged to apply same standards while exercising its powers in accordance with law--These principles, the State has to give effect to while exercising its powers under Section 48 of the L.A. Act. (Para 22)

JUDGMENT

Mr. Augustine George Masih, J.:- Through this order, we propose to decide CWP Nos. 19595 of 2005, 5074, 13198 and 14399 of 2004, 17628, 17630, 17910, 18000, 18007, 18018, 18056, 18376, 18508, 18557, 19072, 19091, 19104, 19230, 19252, 19317, 19330, 19369 and 20127 of 2005, 807, 842, 911, 942, 952, 1009, 1090, 1138, 1145, 1211, 1222, 1223, 1377, 1650, 7435, 9308, 9312, 12313 and 15711 of 2006, 1042 and 2821 of 2007, 16835 of 2009 and 7352 of 2010 (46 cases), wherein notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the L.A. Act’) dated 15.11.2002 (Annexure P-12) and 12.11.2003 (Annexure P-15), report of the High Powered Committee dated 10.11.2005 (Annexure P-19) and Award dated 18.11.2005 stand challenged.

2. It was agreed between the counsel for the parties on 01.11.2005 that CWP No. 19595 of 2005 shall be treated as a lead case thus, the facts are being taken from it.

3. M/s Aryan Exports-petitioner No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioner firm’) is a partnership firm. The land in dispute measuring 4 Kanals 2 Marlas comprised in Khasra No. 28/20/2/2/1 situated in the revenue estate of village Begampur Khatola, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was purchased vide registered sale deed dated 08.09.1995. The land, after purchase, was leased out to the petitioner firm vide registered sale deed dated 30.01.1996 for 99 years i.e. up to 29.01.2095. Entries to that effect was made in the revenue records and mutation was also sanctioned. The original owner, namely, Sh. Ram Lal Kakkar died and on the basis of the registered will, petitioner No. 1-Anil Kakkar stepped into his shoes and became the owner of the land.

4. Petitioner No. 2 was initially constituted in the year 1978 and was reconstituted vide a partnership deed dated 01.04.1997. The petitioner firm was to raise a building of its own, which was to be completely self-contained unit and was to accommodate all the departments, including quality control and inspection, stores, maintenance and accounts office etc. in addition to main production department and a show room. The nature of the business of the petitioner firm was of Creator and Exporters of Fashion wear. The petitioner firm applied for necessary permission for Change of Land Use (for short ‘CLU’) to the District Town Planner, Gurgaon in the year 1996. As formalities could not be completed, fresh application was submitted by the petitioner firm for permission on 05.08.2002 on a prescribed proforma. Site inspection was done by the District Town Planner (Enforcement), Gurgaon. Meanwhile, the project report was got registered with the District Industries Centre, Gurgaon and provisional Small Scale Industries certificate dated 23.09.2002 for manufacture of readymade garments was obtained on provisional basis by the petitioner firm. An application to the Pollution Control Board, Haryana for the grant of Water and Air Pollution Certificate was also submitted on 26.09.2002. The application for CLU of the petitioner firm was returned by the District Town Planner, Headquarters, Chandigarh vide letter dated 14.02.2003 on the ground that the land, for which the CLU was sought, stands acquired and the papers may be resubmitted after obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the Industries Department.

5. The State of Haryana issued notification dated 15.11.2002 (Annexure P-12) under Section 4 of the L.A. Act for acquisition of 389 Acres 4 Kanal 17.79 Marla of land in Villages Begampur Khatola, Narsingpur and Khandsa, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The land was needed by the Government at public expenses for public purpose, namely, for development of integrated complex for industrial, institutional, commercial, recreational and other public utilities i.e. to set up Industrial Sectors 34 and 35, Gurgaon. This was done keeping in view the economic activities particularly in the district of Gurgaon, where many industries have set up their units. A large number of domestic and f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2011 Supreme(P&H) 346

2011(2) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 1218IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (DIVISION BENCH)BeforeThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasbir SinghThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih CWP No. 19595 of 2005Anil Kakkar & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors. {Decided on 28/01/2011}

Judicial Analysis

2011(2) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 1218
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih
CWP No. 19595 of 2005
Anil Kakkar & Anr.
v.
State of Haryana & Ors.
{Decided on 28/01/2011}