Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mangla Trading Co. vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 15 December, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1998)119PLR621
JUDGMENT N.K. Agrawal, J.
1. This is a petition by 50 licensees of the new grain revenue market, Tauru, Gurgaon, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Marketing Board) and the Market Committee, Tauru, hot to recover the amount of enhanced compensation from the petitioners.
2. State Government of Haryana acquired land measuring 33 acres 4 kanals and 2 marlas under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") for establishing a new grain market at Tauru (District Gurgaon). Notification Under Section 4 of the Act was issued on July 30, 1979 and award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on March 13, 1986. Compensation was enhanced by Additional District Judge, Gurgaon on a reference petition filed Under Section 18 of the Act. Plots of land were sold by open auction and also by draw of lots for developing the grain market. Marketing Board decided to allot 50% plots and booths by open auction to general public, 45% by draw of lots to old licensees of Purani Mandi and 5% to persons belonging to SC/ST category. There were 106 plots and 56 booths in the new grain market. Thus, 53 plots and 28 booths were to be sold by open auction. Petitioners were old licensees and, therefore, they applied for the purchase of plots by draw of lots. Purpose behind selling plots by draw of lots was to give place of business to the old licensees at a reasonable price. Plots were sold in public auction at the price of Rs. 1,36,000/- and above, as against the reserved price fixed at Rs. 91,052/- for a plot and Rs. 17,675/- for a booth. Price claimed from the petitioners on allotment by draw of lots was Rs. 63,376/- for a plot and Rs. 12,302/- for a booth. The petitioners challenge to the demand of additional amount representing enhanced compensation is that, out of the total land measuring about 33 acres acquired by the State Government, shops and booths were constructed over an area measuring about 4 acres only. Allocation of land in the new grain market is said to be as under (in para 8 of the petition) " (a) Shops 1,80,200 sq. ft.
(b) Booths 18,480 sq. ft.
(c) Area for residence of Secretary,
Staff quarters, dispensary,
godown, etc, 1,62,162 sq. ft.
(d) Area for water works, bank,
post office buildings 55,080 sq. ft.
(e) Office complex 27,618 sq. ft.
(f) Area for roads, parkings, parks,
open space, etc. 10,22,935 sq.ft."
3. The petitioners' argument is that the Market Committee has utilised a small portion of the land for constructing shops and booths and the major portion had been left for use for common purposes, like offices, roads, parking, godowns, Dispensary, staff quarters, water works, bank, post office, etc. It is, therefore, contended by the petitioners that the Market Committee or the Marketing Board could not recover from the petitioners the entire amount representing enhanced compensation paid for acquiring the land. Besides, Market Committee earned Rs. 25,00,000/- per annum by way of market fee and Rs. 12.5 lacs in Haryana Rural Development Fund. Thus, Marketing Board as well as the Market Committee had sufficient resources from the market fee. Substantial revenue was also earned from the sale of the shops and booths by public auction. The petitioners have, thus, challenged the recovery of additional money from them on the primary plea that the Marketing Board and the Market Commit tee have sufficient income but, in spite of that, the burden of enhanced compensation was laid on the heads of the petitioners. The amount was paid on acquisition of land measuring 33 acres but the licensees and the allottees have been asked to bear the burden, though they were given plots and booths on a small portion of land. Since the entire burden of enhanced compensation relating to 33 acres of land has been distributed amongst the persons using only 2 acres of land, it is said to be wholly unjustified.
4. The respondents have defended the demand of additional money from the petitioners on the ground that, in the allotment letters issued to the petitioners, price of plot was stated to be tentative and any enhancement in the cost of land under the Act was required to be paid by the allottees proportionately. It is pleaded by the respondents that since the petitioners accepted the terms and conditions of allotment, they were now estopped from raising any objection. 40% plots were sold by draw of lots to old licensees at the reserved price, 5% to persons belonging to SC category of Notified Market Committee and 5% to farmers of Notified Market Committee. As regards the contribution to Haryana Rural Development Fund, it is explained that the Marketing Board and the Market Committee had no concern with the same inasmuch as contributions received was deposited in the account of the said fund. It has been further argued by learned counsel for the respondents that the Marketing Board and the Market Committee have not sufficient fund to meet expenditures on development work and maintenance. Money spent on developing the grain market was required to be recovered from the allottees only. Whatever money was recovered by way of market fee, that was utilised for the upkeep and maintenance of the services and facilities. Demand for additional amount, representing enhanced compensation, has been made in accordance with the terms and conditions of allotment. The persons, who purchased plots in the open auction, cannot be asked to pay additional amount because there was no such condition in the allotment letters issued to them.
5. The primary controversy relates to the category of the allottees from whom the amount of enhanced compensation is required to be recovered. There is no dispute to the petitioner's assertion that shops and booths have been constructed on a limited portion of the land, acquired for developing the grain market. The respondents have, in para 8 of their reply, specified the same area of land used for construction of shops and booths, as has been mentioned by the petitioners in para 8 of their petition. Thus, the area of land under shops and booths is not in controversy. In such a situation the entire burden cannot be laid on the petitioners, who were allotted plots and booths at a reserve price. The very purpose of creating a special category for them and fixing a reserve price was to help them shifting from the old Mandi to the new grain market. The burden has not been put on those who purchased plots and booths in open auction. It would be appropriate if the burden is shared by the old licensees proportionately, after taking into account the income earned by the Marketing Board and the Market Committee from different sources. The matter, therefore, needs a detailed examination as to how much can be met by the Marketing Board and the Market Committee from income and other sources and how much is required to be shared by the allottees and users. There is no denial of the fact that the major portion of the land acquired for developing the grain market is being used for roads, parking, offices, residential houses, platforms, water works, etc. It would be unfair and unjust to demand the entire amount representing enhanced compensation from one category, namely, the petitioners.
6. Since the demand from the petitioners of the entire amount, representing enhanced compensation is found to be unfair and unjust, the respondents are directed to re-allocate the amount proportionately keeping in view the utilisation of the land for construction of shops and booths and also the other categories of persons who are utilising the facilities in the grain market. The respondents are expected to keep in view all the aspects including the earnings and the revenue as well. The recovery of the enhanced compensation from the petitioners shall be thereafter made.
7. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.