Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAJESH BINDAL & HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, JJ.
J.B. Industries - Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others - Respondents
CWP No.5548 of 2009 (O&M)
Decided On : 08-02-2017
Land Acquisition - Change of Land Use - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4, 6 - 1963 Act - [CHANGE OF LAND USE] - [LAND ACQUISITION] - [Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4, 6, 1963 Act] - The court discussed the petitioner's contention that the grant of permission for change in land use should prevent the acquisition of the land. The court held that the permission for change of land use does not provide immunity from any other Act/Rules/Regulations applicable to the land in question. The court referred to Section 24 of the 1963 Act, which specifically saves the powers of the Government to acquire the land or impose restrictions on the use and development of land comprised in the controlled area. The court also cited previous Supreme Court cases to support its decision, emphasizing that the grant of permission for change of land use has no relevance in considering the validity of acquisition and the principle of promissory estoppel is not attracted in such a case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a sole proprietorship firm, sought to quash notifications issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the acquisition of its land for setting up an Industrial Model Township. The petitioner had obtained permission for change of land use and argued that the State Government should not be permitted to acquire the land for which permission for change of land use had been granted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the grant of permission for change of land use does not prevent the acquisition of the land for a public purpose. The court held that the purpose of acquisition by the State, i.e., for developing an integrated complex for industrial, transport, and other public utilities, is similar to what the petitioner intends to use his land for. The court also noted that the petitioner's gift of land to the Panchayat was of its own volition and would not affect the validity of the acquisition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the grant of permission for change of land use should prevent the acquisition of the land by the State for a public purpose.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the grant of permission for change of land use does not provide immunity from any other Act/Rules/Regulations applicable to the land in question. The court referred to Section 24 of the 1963 Act, which specifically saves the powers of the Government to acquire the land or impose restrictions on the use and development of land comprised in the controlled area. The court also cited previous Supreme Court cases to support its decision, emphasizing that the grant of permission for change of land use has no relevance in considering the validity of acquisition and the principle of promissory estoppel is not attracted in such a case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's contention that the grant of permission for change of land use should prevent the acquisition of the land. The court clarified that the respondents would be bound by their undertaking in the written statement of considering the petitioner's request for allotment of a plot by the HSIIDC on priority.
HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, J.
1. This petition has been filed praying for quashing of notifications dated 13.2.2008 (Annexure P-9) and 31.12.2008 (Annexure P-16) issued under Section 4 and 6, respectively, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 1894 Act') whereby, the land of the petitioner was sought to be acquired.
2. The petitioner, a sole proprietorship firm, claims to be running a wood based industry since long which is located near Railway Level Crossing, Jhajjar Road, Rohtak. It holds a license for the same which is valid upto 31.3.2017. With a view to expand the industry, he purchased 18 Kanals 19 Marlas of land situated in Mauja Kehrawar through sale deeds dated 10/15.3.1995, dated 30.11.1995/6.12.1995 and 8.10.1997.
3. On 14.5.2007, it applied to the Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana – respondent No.3 for permission to change the existing use of land for the purpose of development of the land into building for residential / industrial/ commercial/ other purpose. Respondent No.3 granted permission for Change of Land Use vide his letter dated 19.03.2008 and 03.04.2008 (Annexure P-11 and P-11/1), subject to various conditions. One condition was regarding gifting 13 Marlas of land to Village Panchayat Kehrawar for making a path, a condition which was complied with by donating 19 Marlas to the Panchayat by way of gift deed dated 24.3.2008. The application dated 10.4.2008 submitted to the District Town Planner-cum-Chairman of the Building Plans Approval Committee for Controlled area, Rohtak for approval of building plan was accepted and vide letter dated 7.8.2008, the building plan was approved subject to the condition of Change of Land Use granted by the Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana.
4. State of Haryana issued notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act dated 13.2.2008 for acquiring land for setting up of Industrial Model Township, Rohtak to be planned and developed as an integrated complex for industrial, transport and other public utilities by the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC). The petitioner filed objections under Section 5-A of 1894 Act dated 07.03.2008, wherein exemption from acquisition was sought on the ground that permission for change of land use had been applied for. It was also pleaded that the petitioner proposes to use the land for the same purpose as envisaged by the acquisition. i.e. industrial. Finding merits in the objections, the Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak recommended release of the land of the petitioner from acquisition. Despite the aforesaid recommendation declaration under Section 6 of 1894 Act was issued on 31.12.2008, which included the land of the petitioner. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present petition.
5. In the written statement filed on behalf of the State, it has been stated that the State government decided to acquire the land situated in the revenue estates of villages Bohar, Garhi Bohar, Baliana, Kehrawar and Kheri Sadh, Tehsil and District Rohtak for a public purpose namely – setting up of an Industrial Model Township, Rohtak to be planned and developed as an integrated complex for industrial, transport and other public utilities, etc. by the HSIIDC. Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act for acquisition of 1951 Acres 7 Kanals 7 Marlas was issued on 13.2.2008. Number of land owners filed objections under Section 5A of the 1894 Act. The District Land Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak considered these objections and submitted his recommendations to the Government. The HSIIDC being the project development and implementation agency, comments of HSIIDC were sought on the recommendation of the District Land Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak as it alone was competent to comment on its requirements for integrated development of the facilities from the point of view of its plans. A team of the officers led by the Financia
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
