SHRIMATI USHA ADLAKHA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are being decided by a common order because the main prayer made in all the petitions relates to a challenge to the legality of notifications dated 1. 6. 1976 and 16. 2. 1977 issued by the Government of Haryana Under Sections 4 and 6 of the Lands Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the award dated 3. 7. 1981 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector.

(2.) A brief reference to the facts of each of these petitions is necessary for the purpose of deciding the cases. CWP No. 4263 of 1984: Petitioner, Smt. Usha Adlakha, entered into an agreement with M/s. Punjab United Forge Limited on 21. 12. 1979 for purchase of land measuring 2. 65 acres situated at Ballabgarh. This land is said to have been subjected to acquisition in the year 1958 by the then Government of Punjab for Indian Metallurgical Industries Pvt. Ltd. The Haryana Financial Corporation which had given loan to the Indian Metallurgical Industries Pvt. Ltd. , filed a Civil Suit No. 132 of 1984 in the Court of District Judge, Gurgaon. The property was auctioned on 4. 5. 1975 in pursuance of the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge but that process was stayed by the High Court in a revision petition filed against the order of the District Judge. Later on, in pursuance to the order of the High Court, the property was once again put to auction. The auction sale was confirmed in favour of the Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation. Out of this land, 2. 65 acres of land was transferred to the Punjab United Forge Limited by the Punjab Industrial Development Corporation and the petitioner entered into an agreement for purchase of the land with the Punjab United Forge Limited. The petitioner says that after purchase of the property, she applied for permission to raise construction in the form of a shopping centre and the Chief Administrator, Faridabad Complex Administration, Faridabad granted permission to her. However, when she started construction, the Haryana Urban Development Authority interfered with the same compelling her to file a civil suit for injunction in the Civil Court at Faridabad. The suit was contested by the Haryana Urban Development Authority on the ground of bar contained in Section 50 (2) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. The Petitioner says that on 1. 6. 1976, the Government of Haryana issued notification Under Section 4 of the Act and despite the objections raised by the Haryana Financial Corporation etc. Under Section 5-A of the Act, the Government issued notification dated 16. 2. 1977 Under Section 6 of the Act for acquisition of the land. Proceedings of acquisition have been challenged by the petitioner on the ground of violation of the provisions of the Act and absence of public purpose. The petitioner says that due to non-publication of notification, objection could not be filed by her as envisaged by Section 5-A of the Act and the Government published notification Under Section 6 of the Act in hot haste. In reply, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have pleaded that the acquisition proceedings have been finalised and the award has been made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 3. 7. 1981 and further that the possession of the and has been taken over by the Estate Officer, Faridabad. It has also been pleaded by these respondents that the writ petition has been filed after a long delay and the petitioner who has purchased the property after initiation of the acquisition proceedings does not have any locus standi to challenge the acquisition. In reply filed on behalf of M/s. Royal Industries, Ballabgarh (respondent No. 7), the objection of delay and laches has been repeated. It has also been asserted that C. W. P. No. 6042 of 1981 (Dan Singh alias Rajbir Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.) involving challenge to the impugned notifications was dismissed on 6. 1. 1988 an the Special Leave Petition has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 11. 12. 1992 and, therefore, no writ should now be issued to quash the acquisition. It has also been stated that the possession of the property was taken over as early as on 3. 7. 1981. Reference has also been made to CWP No. 1587 of 1981 (Indian Core Oil Pvt. Ltd. Faridabad v. State of Haryana and Ors.) decided on 3. 12. 1981 and CWP No. 23 of 1983 (Haryana Export Corporation v. State of Haryana and Ors.) decided on 29. 4. 1983. Respondent No. 7 has also relied on an order passed by the Apex Court in CWP No. 2602 of 1982 which was decided on 26. 11. 1982 and a direction was given to respondent Nos. l to 3 to allot a plot in Sector 5, Faridabad, to respondent No. 7 or to allot any suitable area in the same vicinity at the price prevalent at the time of payment of earnest money by this respondent. A replication to the reply of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has been filed by the petitioner some time in November, 1995 wherein she has stated that the possession of the property still continues with her. She was also reiterated her plea regarding absence of the publication of notification Under Section 4 and that although her interests are vitally affected by the impugned proceedings, the respondents have not given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before seeking to deprive her of the property rights. It is, however, significant to mention that in the verification of this replication, the petitioner has stated that the contents of paras 1 and 2 of the preliminary objections are based on legal advice and are true and correct. Contents of other paragraphs have been stated to be correct without any indication whether they are based on the personal knowledge of the petitioner or the information derived by her from any source. CWP No. 4264 of 1984 : Petitioner, Punjab United Forge Limited, has referred to its agreement to sell entered with Ms. Usha Adlakha in regard to 2. 65 acres of land at Ballabgarh. Other averments made in this writ petition are almost identical to the averments made in CWP No. 4263 of 1984 and the prayers made by the petitioner are also identical to the prayers made in CWP No. 4263 of 1984. Replies filed by the respondents are also on the same lines and, therefore, detailed reference to the same is not necessary. CWP No. 703 of 1986 : Petitioners, Inderpal Singh and others, have come out with a case that land measuring 23 kanals 5-marlas situated in village Mujessar, Ballabgarg, was owned by M/s. GHR Industries through its partners Gian Singh, Harbans Singh and Raghubir Singh, who had 1/3rd share each. Gian Singh is said to have died on 10. 8. 1984 and his 1/3rd share devolved on his four grand sons, namely, Inderpal Singh, Gajinderpal Singh, Pearl Kanchan Singh and Surinderpal Singh. Gajinderpal Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of this land against Harbans Singh and others. That suit was a decreed on 11. 3. 1980 and in terms of the decree, the plaintiff became entitled to get a part of the land. Accordingly, mutations were sanctioned on 3. 11. 1982. Thereafter Inderpal Singh (petitioner No. 1) is said to have flied a suit against his father. That too was decreed on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties and in terms of that decree, mutations were sanctioned. The petitioner has further stated that out of the total 7-kanals and 15 marlas of land falling in Khasra Nos. 35/21 (3-19) and 22/1 (3-16) half was owned by him and the remaining 1/2 share belonged to Harbans Singh, Kanchan Singh and Surinderpal Singh. The petitioner has also stated that the aforementioned piece of land is already developed as it was owned by the GHR Industries. The acquisition proceedings have been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that no notice whatsoever was served on him or his father Shri Harbans Singh or his grand father Shri Gian Singh and the only notice which came into his hand is dated 16. 3. 1978 issued in the name of Gian Singh son of Bhagwan Singh and further that Gian Singh had already died on 10. 8. 1984. The petitioner has also challenged the transfer of land in favour of the Haryana Urban Development Authority by alleging that it is a Company and no land could be acquired for a Company without compliance of the procedure laid down in Chapter-VII of the 1894 Act. Allegation of mala fide has also been levelled by the petitioner even regarding the enactment of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. Another plea of the petitioner is that no notice Under Section 9 or Section 12 (2) has been served upon the interested persons. Respondent No. 4 has filed a reply. In addition to the preliminary objection of delay and laches, the respondent No. 4 has stated that the acquisition made by the Government has already been upheld by the High Court and in fact directions have been given to the Haryana Urban Development Authority to make allotment of plots from the acquired land. Reliance has been placed on various orders passed by the High Court as well as the order dated 26. 11. 1982 (Annexure R-5) passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2602 of 1982 filed by the respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 7 has stated that he was allotted plot Nos. 9 and 10 in Sector 5 and he is in occupation thereof. It has also been stated that a suit filed by Raghubir Singh for permanent injunction against the respondent No. 4 has been dismissed by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Faridabad, on 7. 8. 1954 for want of prosecution and, therefore, now the petitioner cannot question the legality of the acquisition. CWP No. 821 of 1994 : Petitioner, M/s. Star Wire (India) Ltd. , is a Public Limited Company having its registered office at 11, Clive Row, Calcutta (West Bengal ). I is said to be engaged in the business of manufacturing of iron and steel products. The petitioner is said to have purchased land measuring 107 kanals 4 marlas from M/s. Globe Motors Ltd. vide registered sale deed was got registered at Delhi. The petitioner has stated that after about four to five years of the purchase of land by it, respondent No. 5, M/s. Royal Industries, started making claim over a portion of the land comprised in Khasra No. 52/1 and, therefore, it filed a civil suit in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Faridabad, which was decreed on 15. 5. 1982. The learned trial Court passed a decree to the effect that although the plaintiff (petitioner herein) was a trespasser over Rect. No. 52/1/2 but it was owner of the remaining property and it could be dispossessed from the disputed property only after following the procedure established by law. Aggrieved by this decree, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed as time barred on 10. 9. 1993. Undeterred by the dismissal of the appeal by the first Appellate Court, the petitioner filed Regular Second Appeal No. 2380 of 1993 and the same is pending before this Court. The petitioner has stated that in the stay application filed by it along with the Regular Second Appeal, the High Court has passed order of status quo on 3. 11. 1993. The petitioner says that during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court, it was revealed that the Government of Haryana issued notifications Under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act for acquisition of the land. According to the petitioner, these notifications are illegal because the same have been issused without following the procedure prescribed in the Act. Reference has also been made by the petitioner to the suit filed by Shri Bee Narain and others for possession of land measuring 6-kanals 17-marlas out of Khasra No. 52/1. This land is said to have been sold to M/s. Royal Industries through its sole proprietor Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta vide registered sale deeds dated 22. 1. 1993 and 29. 1. 1993. The petitioner has challenged the sale deeds by filing a suit against Bee Narain and Suresh Kumar Gupta in the Court of Sub Judge First Class, Faridabad, and in that suit an order of interim injunction has been passed restraining the purchaser from further alienating the property. Further assertion of the petitioner is that while these proceedings were going on in the Court, the Estate Officer issued notice to it for eviction and passed order dated 12. 8. 1993 for ejectment. Against that order, an appeal has been filed by the petitioner but hearing of that appeal has been stayed sine die till the decision of the civil suit. The petitioner further says that it has filed Company Application No. 1168 of 1993 in Company Petition No. 33 of 1968 pending in the High Court of Delhi and on the application filed by it, the High Court of Delhi has passed order dated 26. 8. 1993 restraining the Haryana Urban Development Authority, its servants, employees or agents from dispossessing the petitioner from the portion of the property measuring 1-kanal 3-marlas comprised in Khasra No. 52/1/2.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners argued that due to non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 4, 6 and 9 of the 1894 Act, the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated. All the learned counsel submitted that the notification issued Under Section 4 has not been published in the locality concerned and no notices have been served on the landowners and in most arbitrary and whimsical manner, the respondents have sought to deprive the petitioners of their property. Learned counsel argued that the issue of notice Under Section 4 (1) constitutes a condition precedent to a valid acquisition and as no such notices have been given to the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest, the impugned notification should be quashed. Shri Mehta laid emphasis on the fact that father of the petitioner was suffering from cancer and was being treated at Bombay and, therefore, no notice can be said to have been served by the respondents. He also placed reliance on the Standing Order issued by the Financial Commissioner prescribing the procedure for finalisation of the acquisition proceedings and argued that as the proceedings were not finalised within six months period, specified in the Standing Order, all the actions taken by the respondents should be quashed, Shri Mehta further argued that when an industry was already existing on the land belonging to the petitioner, there could be no justification to acquire the land for the avowed purpose of establishing an industrial area.