Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bharat Steel Tubes Manufacturing Ltd. vs State Of Haryana, Through Collector And ... on 10 October, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1998)118PLR89
JUDGMENT G.C. Garg, J.
1. This order will dispose of Civil Revision No. 1176, 1173, 1174 and 1175 of 1992. Facts for the purposes of this order have been taken from Civil Revision No. 1176 of 1992 arising out of Execution Application 63. of 1987/91.
2. Land measuring 129.11 Acres situated in Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat owned by the petitioners and others was acquired by the State by issuing Notification dated 30.12.1962 Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The land was acquired by the State Government for a Company by the name of M/s Bharat Steel Tubes Manufacturing Limited in terms of the provision of Chapter VII of the Land Acquisition Act. Notification Under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 1.1.1963. Possession of the land was ultimately taken on 20.1.1963. The Land Acquisition Collector gave an Award on April 30, 1963 and determined the market value of the land at Rs. 0.25 ps. per sq. yard. The claimants felt aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Collector and consequently sought reference Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. At the request of M/s Bharat Steel Tubes Manufacturing Limited, it was impleaded as a respondent in the references taken against the award of the Land Acquisition Collector. The learned Additional District Judge, who decided the references, enhanced the amount of compensation after determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 0.63 ps. per sq. yard. The land owners were not satisfied and filed Regular First Appeals in this Court. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 16.5.1978, allowed the appeals and fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 4.00 per sq. yard. It may be noticed that the company also felt aggrieved by the award of the learned Additional District Judge whereby the amount of compensation was enhanced. The appeals filed by the company/State Government were dismissed. The company took the matter further and filed Letters Patent Appeals. The Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 8.6.1981 allowed the appeals set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and restored that of the Additional District Judge.
3. Land owners aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench of this Court took the matter to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, vide order dated July 13, 1987, set aside the order of the Division Bench of this Court and restored that of the learned Single Judge. The S.L.P. filed by the company against the order of the learned Single Judge was dismissed by the Supreme Court, vide order dated 15.4.1988.
4. Land owners, after the order of the Supreme Court, took Execution application against the State of Haryana, the Land Acquisition Collector and M/s Bharat Steel Tubes Manufacturing Limited. The enhanced amount of compensation was not deposited either by the State of Haryana or by M/s Bharat Steel Tubes Manufacturing Limited. During the pendency of Execution Application, M/s Bharat Steel Tubes Manufacturing Limited filed objections to the Execution Application on the ground that the land after acquisition had been given to the company and it has become a sick unit and, therefore, no execution proceedings can be taken against the company for the recovery of the amount of compensation as finally determined by the Supreme Court. The other objection on behalf of the company was that it does not directly come into the picture and the decree holders can seek recovery against the State of Haryana, which acquired the land.
5. The Executing Court on a consideration of the matter came to the conclusion that the objection petition has no merit. It was consequently dismissed. The Executing Court after coming to the conclusion that the execution application is maintainable not only against the State of Haryana but also against the company, ordered attachment of the land now in possession of the company, a part of the acquired land. Hence this revision petition at the instance of the company. The State has not filed any revision petition against the order of the Executing Court and concededly it has not deposited the amount of compensation with the Executing Court or paid to the land owners. Mr. Rathee, however, pointed out that a part of the enhanced compensation amount was deposited 'with the Executing Court during the years 1989-1990.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, M/s Bharat Steel Tubes Manufacturing Limited, submits that the proceedings Under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, are pending before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and, therefore, no execution proceedings can be taken against the company. Any person seeking to recover any amount from the company is required to approach the Board under the Act aforesaid for seeking permission to recover the amount. The precise contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Board under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, no execution proceedings can be taken against the company.
7. Mr. Rathee, appearing for the State, submits that the State Government deserves to be given some time to recover the amount from M/s Bharat Steel Tubes Manufacturing Limited before it can be directed to deposit the amount with the Executing Court.
8. Mr. J.S. Malik, learned counsel appearing for the land owners, submits that the land of the private respondents was acquired in the year 1962 and they have not been paid compensation thereof though a period of 35 years has elapsed and, therefore it is a fit case where the State Government or the company can be directed either to forthwith deposit the amount of compensation or the property which is the subject matter of the notifications ordered to be restored to them on redepositing the amount of compensation, if any, received by them. The learned counsel in support of his submission placed reliance on Jaswant Singh v. The State of Haryana, (1992-)101 P.L.R. 499.
9. I have considered the matter and find that the land in this case was acquired by the State Government by issuing Notifications Under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The land owners are not concerned as to for whom the land is acquired. It is the State Government which acquired the land and it is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the land owners irrespective of the fact whether it has or has not or will not recover the amount of compensation from the person or the company for whom the land had been acquired, allotted or possession delivered in terms of some arrangement arrived at between the State Govt. and the beneficiary. In this case, I find that the land was acquired for a company and obviously the provisions as contained in Chapter VII of the Land Acquisition Act, particularly in Section 41, must have adhered to by the State Government. In view of the provisions of the Chapter VII and the clauses of the agreement, it may be open to the State Government to issue a notice to the company and straightaway seek possession of the land which was allotted to the company in case it has failed to respect any commitment made by it in the agreement entered into by it with the State Government before the issuance of Notification Under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. But for the reasons best known to the State Government such a procedure has not been adopted. It is not for me to comment in these proceedings whether the State Government should issue a notice and immediately seek possession of the property which had been given to the petitioner-company under an agreement entered into under the provisions of Chapter VII of the Land Acquisition Act or not. The only question before me is whether the land owners can be denied compensation as determined by the highest court in execution proceedings. The answer in my view is in the negative. As already noticed the land was acquired by the State Government and it is under a legal obligation to deposit the amount of compensation with the Executing Court. That compensation has admittedly not been paid or deposited so far though the land was acquired 35 years back.
10. I do not consider it necessary to go into the objections raised by the petitioner herein i.e. M/s Bharat Steel Tubes Manufacturing Ltd. namely whether any decree can be executed against the company or not as it is not for the land owners to recover the amount of compensation from the company for which the land was acquired but the land owners are only entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the State Government which acquired the land.
11. The authority or the company for whom the land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act is permitted to join the reference proceedings only for a limited purpose for the determination of compensation and to enable it to produce such evidence which it may like in the matter of determining the market value of the acquired land and no more. Simply because the land is acquired for a company or authority and it has been allowed to join the proceedings for the purpose of fixing the market value of the land or other structures standing thereon cannot be taken to mean that execution proceedings can be initiated against the company or authority for the recovery of the amount of compensation. The liability to pay or deposit the compensation continues to be that of the State as the land was acquired by the State. It is altogether a different matter that the State can recover the entire amount from the company or the authority for whom the land was acquired.
12. The judgment in Jaswant Singh's case has no application to the facts of this case. In that case, the company sought leave to sell a part of the acquired land with a view to deposit the balance amount of compensation.
13. For the reasons recorded above, I modify the order under revision and direct the learned Executing Court to forthwith dispose of the execution application by attaching the property of the State Government for the recovery of the balance amount of compensation in case the amount of compensation is not deposited with it by the State Government within a period of six weeks from today. In case the Statement Government is aggrieved against the company for which the land was acquired, it may take such immediate steps as may be permissible to it under the terms and conditions of the agreement or the provisions of Chapter VII of the Land Acquisition Act i.e. to take possession of the property from the company or to recover the amount due under the award of the Court. It is also clarified that the amount of compensation shall be deposited by the State Government irrespective of the fact whether it has taken steps to recover the same from the company or not.
14. With the above observations and directions, this revision petition stands disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana forthwith so that immediate steps are taken to deposit the amount of compensation.