Allahabad Bank v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 17 Feb 2010
- Bench
- M M KUMAR, JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 s. 4
Key paragraphs
- Para 11. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the notification dated 17.11.2005 (P-4), issued under Section 4…
Judgment
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Ravinder Malik-Ravi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the notification dated 17.11.2005 (P-4), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), declaration dated 7.2.2006, under Section 6 of the Act (P-5), and subsequent proceedings arising there. A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to release land measuring 15 Kanals 19 Marlas, comprised in Khasra Nos. 6/23/1, 23/2, 24/1 and 24/2, situated in Village Kundli, District Sonepat, where factory and godown are situated. CWP No. 2751 of 2010 2 Brief facts of the case are that the Allahabad Bank- petitioner has advanced various loan/cash credit facilities to one Shree Shyam Cotspin Limited Company (for brevity, ‘the Company’). The Company mortgaged its immovable properties including industrial land measuring 15 Kanals 19 Marlas, comprised in Khasra Nos.
6/23/1, 23/2, 24/1 and 23/2, situated in Sector 58, Village Kundli, District Sonepat, together with factory and building constructed thereon with the petitioner Bank. It has been claimed that as on 18.11.1998, a sum of Rs. 6,51,54,168/- was due and payable by the Company to the petitioner bank. The petitioner Bank instituted recovery proceedings by filing O.A. No. 398-A of 1998 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi. Eventually, after the recommendation of the BIFR, the High Court of Delhi ordered for wound up of the Company vide its order dated 9.2.2009 (P-2). In the meanwhile, during the year 2003 a Asset Sale Committee was appointed for the purpose of sale of the land and factory which has been mortgaged with the petitioner Bank. The possession of the factory was taken over by the said Asset Sale Committee through the petitioner-bank. Thereafter in the year 2005, the High Court of Delhi directed the petitioner bank to make proper publication inviting tenders for sale of the said property.
In the open bidding, one P.P. Homes and Infrastructures was the highest bidder, who also deposited the earnest money. However, later on it was disclosed by the P.P. Home and Infrastructure that the property in question is under acquisition, inasmuch as, on 17.11.2005 the respondent State has issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act CWP No. 2751 of 2010 3 proposing to acquire the land, which was followed by declaration dated 7.2.2006, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The land in question has been acquired for a public purpose, namely, for development and utilization of land for residential, commercial and institutional Sectors 65, 66, 67 and 68 Sonepat. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner we are of the view that there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel has fairly conceded that the award in the present case has been announced prior to filing of the instant petition.
There is a catena of judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court laying down the principle that no petition would be competent after announcement of award against the acquisition proceedings. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited, (1996) 11 SCC 501; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48; C. Padma v. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627; Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 698; and M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280. It is, thus, well settled that no writ petition would be competent after passing of award because possession of land is taken and it is deemed to vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Thus, no ground is made out to accept the contention raised by the petitioner and to quash the acquisition proceedings CWP No. 2751 of 2010 4 subject matter of instant petition. At best, the petitioner bank may stake its claim for compensation as per law in its capacity as mortgagor. dismissed. In view of above, the writ petition fails and the same is (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE February 17, 2010 Pkapoor (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 17 Feb 2010. The bench was M M KUMAR, JITENDRA CHAUHAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.