SWET CHEM ANTIBIOTICS LTD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing notification dated 17.11.2005 (Annexure P.9) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') and declaration dated 7.2.2006 (Annexure P.10) made under Section 6 of the Act in respect of the land of the petitioner. At the outset it is appropriate to mention that acquisition proceedings which are subject matter of challenge in the instant petition were also impugned in CWP No. 2835 of 2006 alongwith other bunch of petitions which were dismissed on 22.1.2008 by a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (M.M. Kumar, J.) is a member. However, on the ground that the instant petition is distinguishable from others the file appears to have been segregated.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the instant petition are that the petitioner, which is a limited company, is stated to have purchased the land comprised in Rectangle Nos. 41, 42 and 46 in Khasra No. 7/2, 8/2, 15/1, 13/1, 14/1, 15/2, 16/1, 24/25/1, 11, 12 and 4/1 on 14.12.1992 (Annexure P.2). The total land comes to 41 kanal 19 marlas which is situated in village Asawarpur, Tehsil and District Sonepat. The mutation has been entered in the name of the petitioner in the revenue record. It is claimed that the land was purchased by the petitioner company for setting up of a chemical unit of manufacturing antibiotics. For change of land use an application was made on 15.9.1994 by the petitioner company to the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana-respondent No. 3 on the prescribed form and fee under the rules was also deposited. It is claimed that vide communication dated 26.9.1994 (Annexure P.3) the petitioner company was granted permission for change of land use with certain conditions and after the permission, construction has been raised, photographs of which have been placed on record as Annexure P.4 (Colly.). It has further been asserted that for raising construction the petitioner company had raised a loan of Rs. 420 lacs from the IDBI and the property in question was hypothecated to IDBI. It was thereafter on 17.11.2005 that notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. On 3.1.2006 (Annexure P.6), the petitioner is stated to have come to know about the notification and accordingly a letter through courier (Annexure P.7) for release of land of the petitioner from acquisition was sent to the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner and the receipts have been placed on record. Again on 22.2.2006 a representation (Annexure P.8) was made to respondent No. 4 HUDA when the representative of the petitioner-company personally met their officers, which was forwarded by the Administrator HUDA to the District Town Planner, Sonepat and Land Acquisition Collector. However, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 7.2.2006 (Annexure P.10). The petitioner has also placed reliance on policy dated 26.6.1991 (Annexure P.11) which postulates that existing factory should not be acquired and be released from acquisition proceedings. On that basis it is claimed that respondents have released the land of a number of land owners who have obtained permission from the State Government and for utilisation of their land which comes to about 10.25 acres. It has also been mentioned that M/s Roulnds Codan, which was the beneficiary, inasmuch as, 8.58 acres of their land has been released by respondents. In a separate affidavit filed by the Director of the petitioner-company the stand taken is that BIFR has declared the petitioner company as a sick unit and revival proposal of the company has to be submitted by 5.6.2008. The petitioner has also placed reliance on the State Policy dated 26.10.2007, for release of land from acquisition, which clearly states that any factory or commercial establishment which is in existence prior to 2004 may be considered for release.

(3.) IT has further been claimed that a High Level Committee under the Chairmanship of Chief Administrator, HUDA was constituted for deciding the location of the education site and the present site was found to be suitable. It is claimed that all necessary steps envisaged by Sections 4,5A and 6 of the Act have been taken. After consideration of the report submitted by the Land Acquisition Collector as also the Joint Site Inspection Committee, the Government decided that land measuring 41.26 acres be released from acquisition which pertains to village Aswarpur, Sewl, Khewda and Badkhals.