BUSCHING SCHMITZ PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions 2170, 1206, 1360 to 1363 of 1983, as basic facts and legal issues raised in these petitions are the same, which invite common determination and judgment.

(2.) KEEPING in view the important questions of law raised in these petitions, a learned Single Judge of this Court on 30. 5. 1986 requested Hon'ble the Chief Justice for placing them for decision before a larger Bench. After obtaining orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice, these cases have been placed before a Division Bench. Facts, as stated below, are taken from Civil Writ Petition 2170 of 1993.

(3.) GURDIP Singh Arora, petitioner No. 2, a highly qualified Chemical Engineer with practical experience, set up a modern plant for the manufacture of defence equipment, chemical fertilizers, pharmaceutical and other industrial machinery in collaboration with two leading West German Engineering Organisations known as Messers Busching and Company and Messers Munk and Schmitz, at Milestone No. 18. 6 on Delhi Mathura Road, in the area of village Ajronda, in July 1963. He later on promoted and got incorporated a private limited company titled as 'busching Schmitz Private Limited' with an authorised capital of Rs. 25 lacs. This company is petitioner No. l in this petition. Factory set up by the petitioner was an instant success and secured substantial orders from various private firms and Government departments. Estate Officer, Faridabad, issued notices dated 27. 4. 1964 and 15. 5. 1964, under sections 3 and 6 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheduled Roads Act') calling upon the petitioners to demolish the buildings of the factory for an alleged contravention of the provisions of the scheduled Roads Act. Petitioners' efforts to get these notices withdrawn by the concerned authorities failed and, ultimately, Civil Writ Petition 1868 of 1964 was filed in this Court, which was allowed by a Division Bench on 13. 1. 1965. Notices issued by the respondents under the Scheduled Roads Act were struck down. It was held that neither the plan for the controlled area had been approved by the Government nor the notification under sub-section (4) of section 5 of the Scheduled Roads Act for inviting objections was finally approved and published as required by sub-section (7) of section 5 of the Scheduled Roads Act. Thereafter, the State Government proceeded to make a declaration of the controlled area in accordance with the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Scheduled Roads Act. After observing the formalities prescribed by law, a Master Plan titled "development Plan for Faridabad/ballabhgarh Controlled Area" was finalised and duly published in the Punjab Government Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 22. 1. 1966. Sector wise development of the township of Faridabad was prescribed. Separate areas were carved out as commercial, residential and industrial sectors. Site of the petitioners' factory was included in sector 12, which was assigned to be developed as a commercial sector. Both under the Scheduled Roads Act as also the development plan, provision was made for making relaxations in the implementation of the scheme by allowing existing land use, particularly in the case of industries which had already been set up in the area before the enactment of the Scheduled Roads Act and framing and publication of the Development Plan.