JASWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge here is to the acquisition of the petitioner's land. The extraordinary feature of this acquisition being the permission granted to the Company, for whom it has been acquired, to pay compensation for it by the sale of this very land. It was over 17 years ago that the land had been acquired and the enhanced compensati- on for it has yet to be paid to the landowners, what is more, during all this period, the land too has not been utilized for the purpose for which it had been acquired. In the context of these circumstances, is the acquisition of land sustainable? Herein lies the controversy raised.

(2.) It was as far back as 2/07/1973 that a notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued for the acquisition of 358 Kanals of land which included about 90 Kanals of land belonging to the present petitioners. It was stated in this notification that this land was "needed by the government, at public expense for a public purpose, namely; the setting up of a Sheet Glass industry". The notification under S. 6 of the Act followed on 4/09/1973.

(3.) Next, on 20/06/1974 came the Award of the Collector awarding Rupees 3,93,688.12 paise as compensation for the land acquired. This amount was paid to the land owners on 16/10/1974, on which date possession of the acquired land was taken and handed over to the respondent-company in pursuance of the conveyance deed annexure P/II, executed in his favour on that very day. This Conveyance Deed recited that the Government had acceded to the respondent-Company's request for acquisition of land for the setting up of an industry for the manufacture of sheet-glass and had agreed to transfer the acquired land to it on conditions incorporated therein. These conditions inter alia provided that the respondent-company would pay any enhanced compensation for the land as may become payable by the orders of this Court and that the land would be used exclusively for the purposes of the factory and that no part of this land shall, in any manner, be transferred without the prior written permission of government. Further, it was provided that the factory would be constructed within a year of the date of the execution of the conveyance deed or two years of possession being delivered, whichever period expired earlier. The Government specifically reserved to itself the right to resume the land if the respondent-Company failed to "observe and perform" any of the covenants of the deed.