Civil Writ Petition No.17836 of 2007 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No.17836 of 2007
Decided on : 17.12.2008
M/s Anand International & another.
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others.
....Respondents.
****
CORAM:HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR.
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH.
****
Present: Mr.Amit Jhanji, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Addl. A.G., Haryana,
for respondents No.1 and 5.
Mr.R.S.Longia, Advocate,
for respondents No.2 to 4.
****
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest.
M.M.Kumar, J
The instant petition has been filed for issuance of direction to
respondents for quashing the action of the respondent in continuing with the
acquisition of the part of the land belonging to the petitioners. Although the
adjoining land has been released from acquisition. In that regard, examples
of the land belonging to petitioners M/s S.D.Processors and M/s
Civil Writ Petition No.17836 of 2007 -2-
Mahalakshmi Spinning Mills have been cited.
It remained undisputed that the petitioners earlier filed
C.W.P.No.2777 of 1996 which was dismissed on 24.10.1997. The
petitioners filed S.L.P. before Hon’ble The Supreme Court and the same was
disposed of alongwith S.L.P. filed by M/s Rachana Fabrics on 08.03.1999 in
the following terms:
“Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw
these Special Leave Petitions as according to his instructions
matters pertaining to the petitioners were not highlighted before
the High Court because they were disposed of as batch matters.
No, therefore, purposes to file review petitions before the High
Court.”
After the dismissal of the writ petition and disposal of S.L.P.,
some recommendations have been made by the District Town Planner,
Panipat, on 13.05.1999 (Annexure P-3) in respect of the land belonging to
the petitioners. A direction has been sought for release of the land of the
petitioners from acquisition. In the letter dated 13.05.1999 (Annexure P-3),
the following recommendations have been made:-
“M/s Anand International, Panipat
This site has been marked on the layout plan of Sector 24,
Panipat as ‘B’. This unit was also found in running condition
and the area which was released has been shown as hatched and
the other area which has been shown in red has not been
released, but the work was going on in this also. The plan is
placed at Z-1 for kind perusal please. The approach from
Sanauli road has been indicated as entrance and is in the form
Civil Writ Petition No.17836 of 2007 -3-of Rasta from Sanauli road which has been proposed in the
layout plan of Sector 24 as road 7 mtr wide. This applicant also
filed writ petition in the Supreme Court of India and the same
has also been disposed off on 08.03.1999 alongwith the writ
petition of M/s Rachna Fabric, Panipat. The Orders of the
Supreme Court are placed at ‘Y’ After visiting the site it has
been observed that rest of the area with this applicant, if
acquired will not serve any useful purpose to HUDA as
proposed by D.T.P., Panipat in the layout plan of Sector 24 and
no independent plot can be carved out on this area. Moreover
as observed by the undersigned this unit will also be half-
working which is not in the interest of development of
industries. Therefore, technically if the rest of the area is also
released on the condition that the applicant would pay the
development charges as per HUDA policy for released land and
withdraw the Court case, there does not seem to be technical
objection for the released of the additional land, as many
industries have already been adjusted/released in this sector as
shown on the plan at ‘X’.
In reply to the notice of motion issued to respondents, they
have filed written statement and have admitted the factual averments made
in the petition claiming that the petition filed by the land owner M/s Anand
International was rightly dismissed by this Court and that the land in
dispute has been acquired while deciding Award No.7 dated 28.02.1996, for
development of H.U.D.A. at Panipat.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the
Civil Writ Petition No.17836 of 2007 -4-
view that the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. Firstly the land free
from all encumbrances have vested in the respondent/State under Section 16
(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity ‘the Act’) when
possession was taken on 28.02.1996. We have already noticed while
deciding C.W.P.No.687 of 2008 on 02.12.2008 that possession was
delivered to HUDA free from all encumbrances on the same date. In para 3
of the reply filed by respondents No.2 & 4 it has been categorically stated
that land measuring 3 Kanal 5 Marla out of total land 6 Kanal 16 marla was
released from acquisition whereas the remaining land measuring 3 Kanal 11
marla was acquired by the respondent. Moreover if some land has been
recommended for release in 1999 then the Government could not have
accepted those recommendations after taking possession because of the bar
imposed by Section 48(1) of the Act.
In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the instant
petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
(M.M.KUMAR)
JUDGE
December 17, 2008 (JORA SINGH)
mamta-II JUDGE