JUDGMENT
M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing notifications dated 23.2.1994 and 20.7.1994 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity ‘the Act’) respectively. A further prayer has been made for quashing award dated 16.11.1994 (Annexure P.4) passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Sonepat, respondent No. 2. It has also been prayed that the allotment letter dated 14.3.2007 (Annexure P.6) allotting the land to M/s K.R. Hotels Ltd. respondent No. 4 be quashed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the land belonging to the petitioner measuring 310.05 Acres was acquired in the year 1994. A notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 23.2.1994 (Annexure P.1). The petitioner alongwith others was afforded an opportunity of hearing under Section 5A of the Act and thereafter declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 20.7.1994. The purpose of acquisition declared in the notification was the construction of Fruits and Vegetable Complex at Kundli in the year 1994. The award in respect of the land was announced on 16.11.1994. The petitioner has alleged that for a number of years no development has been made by the respondents on the land to advance the purpose for which the land was acquired. It has further been asserted that the petitioner felt aggrieved when the land was put to auction by the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) and allotment letter dated 14.3.2007 was issued to respondent No. 4. The case of the petitioner as revealed in the petition is that the purpose of acquisition of land has not been fulfilled at all and the respondents have used the land for profiteering which is impermissible in law.
3. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 1, the stand taken is that during the year 2000 the State Government decided to develop an Integrated Marketing Complex and Food Park at Rai through HSIDC, respondent No. 3 on the land measuring 560 acres which included the acquired land belonging to the petitioner which is a small portion There is virtually no change in the purpose of the acquired land. Respondent-State has placed reliance on a judgement of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Mahadeo Deoman Rai to support the view that the purpose of acquisition may change with the change of time. For the same proposition reliance has also been placed on another judgement of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case S.S. Darshan v. State of Karnataka . In para 2 of the reply filed by respondent No. 1, the fact of filing of RFA No. 872 of 2001 by the petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation granted to the petitioner has also been revealed which is pending adjudication of this Court. It has also been urged that there is huge delay in approaching the Court.
4. In its reply, respondent No. 3 has taken the stand that the State Government ordered transfer of 560 acres of land from the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board to HSIDC. Learned State Counsel has also placed on record a document dated 6.12.2001 (Mark “A”) showing that vide order dated 21.12.2000 a decision by the State Government was taken in that regard which was with the object of setting up industrial estate of the units uprooted and shifted out of Delhi as per orders passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the land in question was taken over by HSIDC-respondent No. 3 on 1.1.2001 and development work of the industrial estate is in progress.
5. The stand of respondent No. 4 in a sperate written statement filed by it is that they were bona-fide purchaser for consideration and they are being harassed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 without any fault on their part. Infact they have voiced a grievance that a clear title of the site in question free from all encumbrances and litigation should be given to them as it is to invest huge sum of Rs. 100 crores for construction of the Serviced Apartment. They have gone to the extent of praying for refund of 10 percent of the amount amounting to Rs. 3.12 crores.
6. Mr. Akshay Bhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on paras 47 and 48 of the judgement of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke and Chemicals Ltd. and argued that when land is acquired compulsorily an endeavor should be made to find out as to whether the statute takes care of public interest in the matter viz-a-viz private interest and the effect of inaction on the part of the State and other State instrumentalities/agencies. According to the learned Counsel in the present case, the public interest has not been served as the acquired land since 1994 has not been put to any use.
7. However, Mr. Sanjiv Kaushik and Mr. R.S. Kundu, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 &2 and 3 have submitted that the public purpose is not static and it could always change provided the State has not acted arbitrarily. Referring to the averments made in the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 3 it has been submitted that on account of numerous directions issued by Hon’ble the Supreme Court for housing the industries uprooted from the national capital region, a policy has to be carved out and the Serviced Apartments are part of the afore-mentioned policy. The State Counsel has referred to letter dated 6.12.2001 showing that the land was taken over by HSIDC respondent No. 3 on 1.1.2001 and development work of the industrial estate has been in progress since then. They have drawn our attention to the directions issued by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of M.C. Mehta v. U.O.I and Ors. and M.C. Mehta v. U.O.I and Ors. . Learned Counsel has also referred to another judgement concerning shifting of industries from national capital region to the neighboring states like Haryana who were to render necessary help and facilities to the brick kilns in the case of M.C. Mehta v. U.O.I and Ors. .
8. We have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel and are of the view that the instant petition is a frivolous piece of litigation. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 4, the allegation made is that in the auction held by respondent No. 3 they have not been treated fairly. They have pointed out harassment being caused to them and have prayed for conferring a lawful title on them free from all encumbrances. It has also been urged that the amount deposited by them be refunded by the respondents. It appears that the instant petition has been filed at the instance of respondent No. 4 through the petitioner as proxy. The writ petition suffers from palpable delay as the land was acquired in the year 1994 and the instant petition has been filed after a period of 13 years. The petitioner has filed RFA No. 872 of 2001 seeking enhancement of compensation after having accepted the award. In that regard, reliance may be placed on a judgement of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. and Ors. v. Kollutla Obi Reddy and Ors. . On the afore-mentioned issue of delay, the earlier judgements in the cases of Aflatoon and Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi ; State of T.N. and Ors. v. L. Krishnanan and Ors. and Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. may also be relied upon. In Kolluta Obi Reddy’s case (supra) following observations were made by their Lordships in para 7:
7. The High Court was moved in these matters by writ petitions long after Section 4(1) Notification and Section 6 declarations were made. On that ground alone the writ petitions should not have been entertained. Additionally, the respondents clearly accepted that references in terms of Section 18 were pending. The High Court has not even indicated any reason as to why the writ petitions were being entertained when the references in terms of Section 18 were pending. On that score also the High Court’s judgement becomes unsustainable.
9. Reliance can also be placed on another judgement of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Northern Indian Glass Industries v. Jaswant Singh and Ors. .
10. It is equally well settled that there is no rule of law that the public purpose for which the land has been acquired cannot ever undergo change. With the passage of time the public purpose may change and such a change is not to vitiate the acquisition proceedings. In that regard, reliance has been correctly placed on the judgement in the case of Mahadeo Deoman Rai (supra).
11. In the present case, the acquisition was completed in the year 1994 and the instant petition has been filed after 13 years. It is further pertinent to notice that on account of issuance of directions in series of judgements in the cases of M.C.Mehta (supra) by Hon’ble the Supreme Court the allotment of land by letter dated 6.12.2001 to HSIDC-respondent No. 3 would also advance the public interest. The letter is self explanatory and it reads as under:
The State government vide order dated 21.12.2000 had decided that the land measuring 560 acres (559 Acre, 4 Kanal and 14 Marla ) at Rai be transferred to HSIDC for setting up of Industrial Estate for the units being uprooted and shifted out of Delhi as per orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The land in question was originally acquired by the State Govt. for setting up of Integrated Agro Marketing Complex and Food Park by M/s Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board (HSAMB) through Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Agriculture. Agriculture Education and Horticulture and Marketing Department, Chandigarh. Part of the land measuring 64 Acres 3 Kanals 14 Marle belonged to Motilal Nehru School of Sports, Rai (MNSS Rai) and land measuring 37 acres 6 Kanals 11 Marle belonged to Department of Agriculture Haryana.
A copy of DO letter No. 4843 dated 28.3.2001 by Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Agriculture. Agriculture Education and Horticulture and Marketing Department, Chandigarh is enclosed for reference. The land in question has already been taken over by HSIDC on 1.1.2001 and development work of the Industrial Estate is in progress. As per the decision of the Govt. HSIDC has already paid Rs. 9 crores to HSAMB. Rs. 1,10,26,751/- to MNSS Rai and Rs. 1,65,87,313/- as enhancement compensation alongwith interest of Rs. 205914/- to DRO-cum-LAC Sonepat. Further as per the State Govt. decision the Corporation is defending all the cases pending in various courts of law regarding the said land. It is, therefore, requested that Tehsildar cum Sub Registrar Sonepat may kindly be directed to get the mutation of the entire land 559 Acres, 4 Kanals and 14 Marle at Rai be entered in favour of HSIDC in their revenue records.
12. It is trite to observe that law declared by Hon’ble the Supreme Court is binding on all the Courts and citizens under Article 141 of the Constitution. To carry out and implement those directions would also be public purpose as it is duty of the respondent-State to obey those directions. Therefore, from that point of view also the petition lacks merit.
13. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner based on the judgement of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pure Industrial Coke and Chemicals Ltd (supra) does not require any detailed consideration because of public and private interest has been duly taken care of. It is not disputed that the acquired land is in the vicinity of national capital region and it would sub-serve great public purpose if the uprooted industries from the national capital region is re-located in the nearby area of respective states including the respondent-State of Haryana. Therefore, we find no substance in the argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
14. As a sequel of the above discussion, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.