KRISHNA RICE MILLS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to allot a plot each to the petitioners by holding them eligible for the same. Petitioners have also prayed that a writ of certiorari be issued to quash notification dated 22.11.1994 (Annexure P/5), being illegal and unlawful. It has also been prayed that draw of lots to allot plots, which was held on 13.5.1995, be declared as illegal and allotment made to respondent Nos. 4 to 13, be declared null and void, as they were not eligible for allotment of plots.

(2.) IT is case of the petitioners that they are registered firms and are carrying on business of sale and purchase of agricultural produce at Shahbad Markanda, District Kurukshetra. It is their further case that to run the business, they have obtained necessary licences under the provisions of Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961, as applicable to the State of Haryana (in short, 'the Act'). Petitioners have further averred that in town Shahbad, there existed two markets, known as Partap Market and Indira Market. With a view to establish a compact market yard, a notification was issued by the State of Haryana under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, 'the 1894 Act'), which was published on 4.8.1978. Vide that notification, land was proposed to be acquired for new market. Notification under Section 6 of 1894 Act was issued on 27.2.1980. Possession of the land was taken immediately thereafter. Petitioners, alongwith many other similarly situated licence holders, being old licensees, made several requests to the Government to allot plots to them so that they can establish their business in new grain market. When no step was initiated by the government in that regard, other licence holders filed CWP No. 3804 of 1982, which was dismissed. They went in appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court and their SLP, on admission was registered as Civil Appeal No. 3037 of 1983. The said appeal was disposed of on 27.11.1986 (Annexure P/1) and vide that order, it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that all those applicants/petitioners were eligible, who, on the date of auction, hold a valid licence either in food grains or vegetable for 2 years preceding the date of auction.

(3.) IT is necessary to mention here that number of unallotted plots was only 10. Record shows that thereafter, notification (Annexure P/5) dated 22.11.1994, was issued, whereby old licensees were given right to participate in restricted auction provided they were running business in the old market yard for the last 2 years before the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act and also that they were paying regular market fee of not less than Rs. 5,000/- annually, for each of the last 2 years. It is further case of the petitioners that the said notification runs contrary to the affidavit (Annexure P/2) filed by Secretary of the respondent Board in the Hon'ble Supreme Court as such, was unreasonable and is liable to be quashed. Annexure P/5 was also challenged being discriminatory in nature. It is also case of the petitioners that once it was decided by the respondent Board to allot them plots, they also had deposited earnest money, it was not justified to cancel their allotment. Board was estopped to act contrary to the affidavit filed in Hon'ble Supreme Court and resolution passed thereafter. It is also apparent from the records that many other such like writ petitions were filed and matter went twice upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. By stating above mentioned facts, petitioners have prayed that they be held eligible and accordingly, plots be allotted to them.