Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 319
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajiv Sharma and Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ.
State Of Haryana & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Indian Hardware Industries Limited - Respondent
L.P.A. No. 742 of 2016 (O&M) in Civil Writ Petition No. 615 of 2015
Decided On : 04-03-2020
Amar Vivek, Additional Advocate General, for the Appellant; Kanwal Goyal, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the approval of the Commissioner (Sales) for the transfer of land under the Haryana Evacuee Property Act, 2008 is mandatory and requires a specific order granting approval.
Headnote:
Evacuee Property - Land Allotment - The Haryana Evacuee Property(Management and Disposal) Act, 2008 - Section 4, 7, 8, 9 - Rule 10, 11, 12, 13
Fact of the Case:
The Respondent-Company filed a writ petition impugning the withdrawal of a communication requiring it to deposit 25% of the total sale consideration for the transfer of land under the Haryana Evacuee Property Act, 2008. The company had a dispute over the possession of the land and had filed multiple revision petitions against the orders of the Tehsildar and Commissioner (Sales) regarding the transfer of land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the approval of the Commissioner (Sales) for the transfer of land was mandatory and required a specific order granting approval. The court held that the approval by the Commissioner (Sales) was not granted in this case, and therefore, the transfer of land was not finalized. The court also upheld the withdrawal of the communication requiring the deposit of the sale consideration.
Issues: The primary issue was the validity of the withdrawal of the communication requiring the deposit of the sale consideration. Additionally, the court addressed the multiple revision petitions filed by the company and the requirement of approval for the transfer of land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the approval of the Commissioner (Sales) for the transfer of land was mandatory and required a specific order granting approval. The court also emphasized that there was no scope for intendment or approval by implication.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Single Judge was set aside. The court held that there was no infirmity in the withdrawal of the communication and the reference made to the Additional Chief Secretary & Financial Commissioner to Government of Haryana, Revenue and Rehabilitation Department by the Commissioner Gurgaon, Division Gurgaon.
JUDGMENT
Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. - The State of Haryana has filed this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment dated 09.10.2015 in CWP No. 615 of 2015 titled Indian Hardware Industries Limited v. State of Haryana and others , whereby, the writ petition filed by the Respondent was allowed.
2. The Respondent-Company had filed the writ petition impugning the order/letter dated 15.12.2014 (P-16) whereby the earlier communication dated 24.11.2014 (P-14) requiring it to deposit 25% of the total sale consideration along with other charges in respect of transfer of 3426 sq. yards of residential area to it, in terms of the order dated 13.10.2014 (P-12) of the Tehsildar (Sales), Faridabad under the provisions of The Haryana Evacuee Property(Management and Disposal) Act, 2008, was withdrawn.
3. The facts in brief as emerging from the pleadings are that the Government of India had acquired 450 acres of land to establish a New Industrial Township at Faridabad (for short 'NIT') for persons displaced from Pakistan. Major portion of this land was given on lease to various industries. As per Memorandum of Agreement dated 23.09.1954 (P-1), two parcels of land total measuring 7.79 acres were leased out to the Respondent-Company by the Government of India for a period of five years The first parcel being factory building along with land (combined area measuring 4.17 acres) and second parcel being residential complex consisting of 4 Bungalows over a piece of land measuring 3.62 acres i.e. 17562 sq. yards. The Respondent-Company came into possession of this property in terms of this agreement. This agreement/lease, however, was never extended. The Respondent-Company purchased the factory area along with the building from the Government of India and a Sale Deed was executed on 22.10.1970 by the Government of India for land measuring 4.17 acres. This sale was effected under the The Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. Though offer of sale of residential complex measuring 3.62 acres was also made to the company but the same did not materialize primarily because the Respondent-Company did not agree to its purchase at the rate at which it was offered by the Government.
4. In 1981, the Government of India transferred all residuary assets of NIT, Faridabad to the State of Haryana against payment received from the latter. This included the four bungalows with an area of 17562 sq. yards which had been originally leased to the Respondent-Company.
5. Meanwhile, there was a dispute between the major shareholders of the company and litigation ensued. The factory was closed in 1972. It was revived and started working in June, 1979. During this period many unauthorized persons, most of whom had no concern or connection with the company, encroached upon the property and came into possession of different pockets of the 3.62 acres.
6. Those unauthorized occupants, as also the company, approached the State Government for transfer to them of land under their respective possession under the Policy and Rules in existence at that time as per which land/sites which had been under unauthorized occupation for a considerable time and over which substantial construction had been raised could be transferred to the occupants. In order to decide the claims over this 3.62 acres, a Commission comprising the Senior Town Planner, Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, Tehsildar (Sales) Faridabad and Naib Tehsildar Agrarian, Faridabad was constituted to survey the area to determine the possession and construction at site. The Commission visited the site on 12.09.1996 and prepared its report dated 30.09.1996. A site plan was prepared and 13 pockets were shown in possession by way of occupation with pucca structures. The company did not file any appeal against the said report and the same attained finality. The situation at the site has admittedly not changed since the report of the Commission.
7. The Haryana Evacuee Property (Management and Disposal) Act, 2008
