M/s. Coral Chemicals Pvt. Ltd & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Mr. P.K Mutneja, Advocate. Mr. M.L Sharma, Advocate. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate with Mr. A.S Rohila, Advocate. Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate. M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of CWP No.2835 of 2006, 3151 of 2006, 3329 of 2006, 3614 of 2006 and 2946 of 2006. The challenge in these petitions is to the acquisition of land in pursuance to the notification dated 17.11.2005 issued under Section 4 by the respondent-State and declaration dated 7.2.2006 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. For the sake of convenience, facts are being referred to CWP No.2835 of 2006. The respondent-State of Haryana issued notification expressing the intention to acquire land on 17.11.2005 (P-16) under Section 4 of the CWP No. 2835 of 2006 2 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, `the Act'). In pursuance to the notification, objections were filed by the petitioners under Section 5 (A) and the Land Acquisition Collector, after hearing the objectors, made a report to the State Government and similarly Joint Site Inspection Committee also sent its report to the Government. It was after the consideration of the report that the government decided to release certain area from acquisition. It is pertinent to mention that initially a total area of 120.39 acres was sought to be acquired for the purpose of utilization of land for residential, commercial and institutional Sectors 65, 66, 67, 68, Sonepat. After hearing objections, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued and certain area was excluded from acquisition. Thereafter, award was announced on

2.3.2006 (P-23). The case of petitioner no.1-M/s. Coral Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. is that it is running factory since 1984 on the land situated in Rect. and Killa No.4/11 (6-10), 4/12(8.0), 4/10/2 min. South (0-13), 4/9/2 min. South (0-13) measuring 9571 Sq. Yards (15 kanals and 16 marlas). The firm is stated to have purchased this factory in the year 1983 by a registered sale deed (P-1) from M/s. Bharat Industrial Corporation, New Delhi, who in turn, had earlier purchased the factory from M/s. Modi Textiles Trading Corporation Limited on 13.8.1981. It has been claimed that change of land use as per requirement of Section 7 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of unregulated Development) Act, 1963 had initially been granted to M/s. Modi Textiles Trading Corporation, who had raised a construction. It is further claimed that some modifications were later on added in the building which were pointed out by the order dated 24.7.1967 and 10.4.1969 (P-3 and P-4). It has further been claimed that the petitioner- CWP No. 2835 of 2006 3 firm was also granted permission to issue the existing use of land and building for industrial purposes. In addition to 15 kanals and 16 marlas land purchased by the petitioners, it has further purchased another piece of land showing the existing factory measuring 35 kanals 14 marlas. On

24.5.1990 and 30.5.1990 (P-6 and P-7). The construction is claimed to be of `A' class. The petitioners have pleaded that it is manufacturing chemical/bulk drugs and license has been given by the State Drug Controller Directorate General, Health Services, Haryana, manufacturing of biological and non-biological drugs (P-9). The Company is also stated to be registered as small scale industrial unit with the Department of Industry (P-10). In the short written statement filed on 28.8.2006, it was claimed in para 2 of the written statement that permission for CLU was not available in the official record and as per the record of the Department of Town and Country Planning, M/s Modi Textiles Trading Corporation has raised unauthorised construction which was pointed vide order 2135 dated

21.4.1969. It was out of the compounded construction that the petitioners have purchased land measuring 15 kanals 16 marlas who were granted permission for addition/alteration vide letter no.11190 dated 19.7.1984. It has however been made cleared that the building plans were never got approved by the petitioners from the Department and the petitioners have, without obtaining permission for change of land use (CLU), raised unauthorised construction over an area of land measuring 35 kanals 14 marlas. The respondents have further claimed that total land measuring

2007.60 acres has been acquired for setting up Rajiv Gandhi Education City CWP No. 2835 of 2006 4 in the Multi-functional open Complex on the national highway No.1 at Sonepat. The city is being developed as knowledge city which would have top class infrastructure and support services so as to attract all the world class educational institutes who open their campuses there. It is an endeavour to invite the world's best educational talent in this era of globalization by developing education city as a centre of learning. The project has gone quite far as expression of interest has also been invited. It has further been highlighted that after detailed discussion, the site of Sector 65 and 67 at Sonepat, Kundli Road was found more suitable for setting up of Education City and that after considering objections under Section 5-A, land measuring 41, 65 Acres has been left out which include area of 10.25 Acres where permission for change of land use stands granted. The respondents have further claimed that a number of writ petitions challenging this very acquisition have already been dismissed by this Court which include CWP Nos. 2747, 2748, 3234, 3441, 3444, 4300, 4297, 4820, 4993, 5089, 5333, 4305, 5447, 5042, 5469, 6517, 6522 of 2006 and others on 25.5.2006. In para 5 of the written statement, it was claimed that the petitioners did not file any objections before the Land Acquisition Collector. The petitioners filed a replication controverting the averments made by the respondents. However, on 13.12.2007, another written statement has been filed accepting that the objections were filed by the petitioners which were heard as is evident from the perusal of para 4. Therefore, the mistake earlier committed in the written statement dated

28.8.2006 has been rectified and the controversy of granting no hearing by CWP No. 2835 of 2006 5 the Land Acquisition Collector stand cured. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in these petitions. It may be true that the petitioners have been transacting their business since 1983 but no permission for change of land use has ever been granted to them. As per the averments made in the written statements, no CLU is available in the official records, although, the record of the Department of Town and Country Planning showed rasing of unauthorised construction by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners namely, Modi Textiles Trading Corporation which was appointed on 21.4.1969. Even after the petitioners have purchased the land, it did not ever got its siteplan approved and without obtaining permission of CLU had raised unauthorised construction over an area measuring 35 kanals and 14 marlas which is without the permission of the Department of Town and Country Planning. Even otherwise, we find that the land is being acquired for public purpose for establishing Rajiv Gandhi Education City and a number of writ petitions have already been dismissed by this Court on 25.5.2006 which include CWP Nos. 2747, 2748, 3234, 3441, 3444, 4300, 4297, 4820, 4993, 5089, 5333, 4305, 5447, 5042, 5469, 6517, 6522 of 2006 and others. It is further pertinent to notice that the award was announced on

12.3.2006 (P-23) and CWP No.3329 and CWP No.3614 of 2006 were filed on 2.3.2006, CWP No.3151 of 2006 was filed on 27.2.2006 when notice under Section 9 of the Act had already been issued. CWP No.2946 of 2006 was filed on 25.2.2006. It is well settled that the writ petition which have been filed after the pronouncement of the award would in any case will not be maintainable as has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases CWP No. 2835 of 2006 6 of Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 698, Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Heyden Beig (2000) 2 SCC 48, C. Padma v. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu (1997) 2 SCC 627 and Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan JT, 2008(2) SC 280. In the present case, the petitions have been filed on the date of announcement of the award when the possession of the land had already been taken and lands started to vest in the respondent-State free from all encumbrances. There is no explanation for approaching the Court belatedly when the notification under Section 4 was issued on 17.11.2005. There is thus no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. The argument of Mr. P.K Mutneja, learned counsel for the petitioners that the factory is in operation and huge loss will be caused, has not impressed us because the petitioners have to be adequately compensated not only for the land but also for the structure or another building of the petitioners so that cannot constitute the basis for us to be declared the acquisition as invalid. As a sequel to the above discussion, we respectfully following the decision rendered in CWP No. 4300 of 2006 on 25.5.2006, these petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE January 22, 2008 (T.P.S. MANN) JUDGE