Punjab-Haryana High Court
Modern Cold Storage And Ice Factory And ... vs The State Of Haryana And Ors. on 25 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: (2003)133PLR41
Author: H.S. Bedi
Bench: H.S. Bedi
ORDER H.S. Bedi, J.
1. Petitioner No. 1 is a partnership concern with petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 as its partners. Vide notification dated 10.1.1983 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as the 'Act'), it was proposed to acquire some land situated in village Jharsa, Tehsil and District Gurgaon for the purpose of the development and utilisation as a residential and commercial area. The petitioners' land (which they had purchased on 26.9.1980) was also notified for acquisition. The petitioners filed objections against the proposed acquisition under Section 5-A of the Act pointing out, inter alia, that they had spent a huge amount after raising a loan in constructing a cold storage on the land in question and the said construction had been authorised and sanctioned by the Director of Industries, Haryana as a Small Scale Industry. The respondent-State, however, issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act including the land belonging to the petitioners therein. The present writ petition has been filed impugning the notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act on the plea of discrimination as the built up area belonging to Nirmal Engineering Works had been excluded whereas the petitioners' property had been acquired.
2. The matter first came up before this Court on 13.1.1984 and while issuing notice of motion, an order of stay of dispossession was also made. The said stay order continues to operate as of today.
3. In para No. viii of para 13 of the reply, it has been clearly stated as under:-
"(viii) That in reply to para (viii) of para 13 of the writ petition, it is submitted that no discrimination had been made with the petitioner as alleged in this para. The factory named Nirmal Engineering Works is in a running condition and of fine structure. The same has been adjusted as it was adjustable in the plan development of the area. The cold storage of the petitioners falls in the centre of the proposed green belt and abutting to the Delhi-Jaipur by pass. Hence the same could not be left out and if the same is left out the very purpose of planning will be defeated. Hence there is no discrimination with the petitioners as averred by him in this para. However, it is submitted that the land owner will be given adequate compensation under the provisions of the law."
4. It is, therefore, obvious that the land of Nirmal Engineering Works, which is situated in a different area, had been adjusted as per the lay out plan whereas the land belonging to the petitioners, which is situated on the Delhi-Jaipur bye pass and deep within the area proposed for acquisition cannot be so excluded. In Rakesh Batra v. State of Haryana, (2000-1) 130 P.L.R. 43, it has been held thus:-
"5. Learned counsel next contended that land of some of the persons over which construction was in existence has been released from acquisition, but land of the petitioner has not been released. It is contended that the action of the Authorities in not releasing the land of the petitioner is discriminatory and notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act deserve to be quashed on this score alone. This contention too deserves to be rejected. Respondents in their written statement have denied that there has been any discrimination is regard to the land of petitioner viz-a-vis the land of other persons. They have submitted that as far as the land of M/s Rajindera Steel Rolling Mill, Gurgaon, is concerned, the same was released from acquisition as the land of the factories adjoining the land of the said factory had been left out of acquisition. The land of M/s Hema Engineering Works was also left out of acquisition, keeping in view the project and development of the said factory. Similarly, the land of the petitioner which was under construction was released and only vacant land was acquired, From the stand of the respondents, it is clear that whatever area could be adjusted in the master plan, was adjusted and left out of acquisition proceedings. Besides this, there is no specific allegation levelled by the petitioner against any specific authority which can be accused of any mala fide or discriminatory disposition towards the petitioner. Merely because some areas have been left out of acquisition, cannot be a ground to justify or sustain the charge of discrimination against the petitioner."
5. I am of the opinion that the observations aforesaid apply fully to the facts of the present case. The respondents have made it clear that the case of the petitioner cannot be equated with that of Nirmal Engineering Works.
6. The petitioners have also made an averment that the objections filed by them under Section 5-A of the Act had not been considered. This too has been denied by the respondents.
In view of above, there is no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed.