Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5591 of 1999
PETITIONER:
M/s Anand Buttons Ltd.
RESPONDENT:
State of Haryana & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/12/2004
BENCH:
Shivaraj V. Patil & B.N. Srikrishna
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 5592, 5593, 5594, 5595, 5596 & 5597 of 1999
SRIKRISHNA, J.
These seven appeals by special leave impugn the common judgment
rendered by the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court
dismissing a group of writ petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ’Act’).
The principal contention in the writ petitions before the High Court was that
the acquisition proceedings were vitiated by discrimination and arbitrariness
and, thus, violative of the Fundamental Rights under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Although, seven appeals have been filed in this Court,
the arguments were addressed by the learned senior counsel appearing for
the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 5591 of 1999 in the matter of M/s Anand
Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Ors.. The counsel for the other
appellants have adopted the arguments addressed in the said case.
Facts:
With a view to achieve the goal of rapid industrialization of the State,
the State of Haryana constituted the Haryana State Industrial Development
Corporation as a nodal agency for the development of industrial
infrastructure in the State. New integrated industrial parks and estates were
developed by the state-Corporation keeping in view the Functional Plan
prepared by the Planning Board for the National Capital Region in
accordance with the provisions of the National Capital Regional Planning
Board Act, 1985.
In order to fulfil the objective set out in the Functional Plan over an
area of 30,242 Sq. Kms., of which 13,413 Sq. Kms. fell within the Haryana
sub-region, 41 Industrial Estates of Haryana were targeted for rapid
industrial development. Kundli Industrial Estate was developed in phases
by acquiring land in accordance with the provisions of the Act. For
development of Phase-IV, which is located along National Highway No. 1,
the Government of Haryana (Industries Department) issued a preliminary
notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of 93 kanals 10 marlas
of land (including the lands of the appellants) situated in Village Kundli.
The appellants filed objections under Section 5A of the Act, opposing the
acquisition of their lands on several grounds. The objections raised by the
appellants were considered by the Land Acquisition Collector, Sonepat, who
by his report dated 17.1.1997, recommended that the lands of these
appellants be exempted from acquisition. Being not satisfied with this report,
the State Government forwarded a copy of this report to the Director of
Industries, Haryana and asked for his comments. Simultaneously, the
District Town Planner of the Haryana State Industrial Development
Corporation was also entrusted with the task of examining the report of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
Land Acquisition Collector. As a result of this exercise, it was
recommended by the Director of Industries, Haryana as well as the District
Town Planner of the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation that
the lands of M/s Dinar Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., M/s Amar Elastomers (P)
Ltd. and M/s K.C. Fibre Ltd. may be exempted but the lands of the other
persons affected by Section 4 notification be acquired. The Director of
Industries also addressed a memo dated 23.4.1997 to the Commissioner and
Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Industries Department,
recommending acquisition of land except in the aforesaid three cases. The
State Government, after considering the reports submitted to it under
Section 5A of the Act, made a declaration under Section 6 of the Act. As a
result of the decision taken by the State Government, the lands of only three
industrial units, namely, M/s Dinar Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., M/s K.C. Fibre
Ltd. and M/s Industrial Rollers Co. were exempted from acquisition and the
lands of all the present appellants were included in the declaration under
Section 6 for acquisition. The present appellants challenged the acquisition
of their lands by individual writ petitions before the High Court of Punjab &
Haryana.
The case made out by M/s Anand Buttons Ltd. (Appellant in Civil
Appeal No. 5591 of 1999) was that, it had taken several steps in order to
establish an industry and had expended considerable amount of time, energy
and money in pursuing its objective of establishment of an industrial unit. It
was pointed out that on 4.3.1994 the appellant had purchased land in Village
Kundli, Tehsil and District Sonepat for establishing a large and medium
sector industrial unit for manufacturing of polyster buttons. On 8.3.1994, the
appellant applied to the Director of Industries for grant of permission for
change of land use from agriculture to industrial. The Director of Industries
required from the appellants that before grant of such permission, a path way
of 33 feet wide strip of land for widening the road, had to be necessarily
given up in front of the land in order to enable a connecting road to the
industrial estate. This condition was complied with by the appellant
company which gifted the said land to the Gram Panchayat, as required by
the Director of Industries. On 22.12.1995, the Director of Industries,
Haryana, granted land use justification certificate in favour of the appellant.
On 2.7.1996, the appellant was granted permission for change of user of land
from agriculture to industrial purpose. On 13.8.1996, the appellant submitted
building plan for approval of construction of its factory building to the
District Town Planner, Sonepat. On 26.8.1996, the District Town Planner
called upon the appellant to pay certain processing fee for clearance of the
building plans. While this matter was under process, on 14.10.1996, a
notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued for acquisition of land,
which included the land of the appellant, proposed to be developed for the
purpose of setting up an industrial unit. On 23.11.1996, the appellant
submitted a fresh set of building plans along with requisite processing fee to
the District Town Planner. The appellant also raised its objections under
Section 5A of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector recommended
exemption of the appellant’s land and submitted his report to the Director of
Industries. This report was considered and rejected in the case of the
appellant. The appellant challenged the acquisition proceedings by its writ
petition, C.W.P. No. 4135 of 1998. As already said, this writ petition came
to be dismissed by the common judgment of the High Court. The cases of
the other appellants are also similar.
All the appellants had raised objections under Section 5A, mainly on
the following two grounds:
(a) That each of them had been persuaded to gift 3 Kanals 11 Marlas
of land to the Gram Panchayat, Kundli for increasing the width of the
passage with an understanding that they will be granted permission to
change the user of land. Hence, the Director of Industries and the State
Government were estopped from acquiring the land in question.
(b) Each of the appellants objected to the acquisition on the ground
that they are desirous of setting up an industrial unit and, since the
acquisition was itself intended for setting up of an industrial estate, no
purpose would be served by acquiring their lands when all the formalities
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
had been completed.
The principal contention advanced by the appellants against the
acquisition proceedings before the High Court was that the decision of the
State Government, not to grant exemption from acquisition to their lands,
was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The appellants contended that, in the case of M/s K.C. Fibres and
M/s Amar Elastomers, exemption had been granted from acquisition,
although, they were guilty of raising construction on their lands in violation
of the provisions of Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas
(Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963. It was urged that the
appellants, who had strictly followed the law and applied for requisite
permission and were granted permission, were being discriminated against.
A subsidiary contention urged was that the State Government should be
estopped from acquiring the land after having persuaded the appellants to
give up certain land for a passage as a condition for granting for change of
user or land.
The High Court has carefully considered and evaluated the
contentions urged by the petitioners-appellants in the light of the material
placed before it. The High Court noticed that the cases of all the seven units
were examined and recommended for exemption from acquisition by the
Land Acquisition Collector, who was of the view that, each one of the units
had taken considerable steps towards establishment of an industrial unit. The
General Manager, District Industries Centre, Sonepat, after examining the
individual cases, reported that the facts found in the report of the Land
Acquisition Collector were correct, but made no recommendation with
regard to the acquisition proceedings. He reported: "all the parties have been
heard in person except the representative of M/s Anand Buttons Ltd., who
did not turn up for verification of the facts on the given date." The General
Manager, District Industries Centre pointed out: "all the parties have
expressed their desire to set up an industry on this land within a period of
two years, if released. But none of them has so far taken up a tangible step
on the land. The land of all these parties put together, is surrounded by
Industrial Area already existing at HSIDC, Kundli. These parties have also
stated that they would not sell the plot further but will themselves set up an
industry on it." In the case of M/s Kundli Agro Pvt. Ltd., however, he
suggested that its case deserves a "sympathetical attitude", in view of the
land of 3 Kanals and 11 Marlas gifted by it for making a path way. Finally, it
was reported, "keeping all these things in view, the Headquarter may take a
suitable action."
The State Government did not file an affidavit in reply to oppose the
writ petitions, but, instead, authorized the Director of Industries and the
District Town Planner of the Haryana State Industrial Development
Corporation to do so. The affidavits filed by these officers showed that
M/s Dinar Spinning Mills, M/s Industrial Roller Co. (who were the
subsequent purchasers of land from M/s Amar Elastomers) and M/s K.C.
Fibres had, not only constructed the factory building after obtaining the
permission, but had also started manufacturing of goods. In all other cases,
including the case of M/s Anand Buttons Ltd., there were no tangible steps
taken for erection of factory building, much less had industrial production
commenced. The State Government took the view that there was justifiable
difference between the cases of M/s Dinar Spinning Mills, M/s Industrial
Roller Co., M/s K.C. Fibres on the one hand and those of the present
appellants on the other. Although, M/s K.C. Fibres was alleged to have
carried out a construction in violation of the provisions of the Punjab
Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated
Development) Act, 1963 and the Rules framed thereunder, the said illegality
appears to have been compounded and the construction had been
regularized.
The affidavits filed by the Director of Industries and the District Town
Planner also suggest that the acquisition of land was for setting up of Phase-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
IV of Industrial Estate, Kundli, which work was being supervised by the
Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation appointed as the nodal
agency by the State Government for rapid industrialization of the State. The
High Court pointed out that, in these circumstances, the failure of the State
Government itself to file a return would not be fatal, as the nodal agency,
who was entrusted with the work, had filed affidavits of the competent
officers, who were in the know of facts. It also came to the conclusion that
the action of the Director of Industries, Haryana, calling upon for comments
from the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, and the action
of the State Government in considering their comments before taking a final
decision for issuance of the notification under Section 6 of the Act, was
neither vitiated, nor illegal. The High Court also noticed that the land of the
present appellants was sandwiched between Phase-I and Phase-II of the
Industrial Estate, Kundli. Consequently, leaving a part of the open land
would jeopardize the planned development of the industrial establishment.
This reasoning of the High Court cannot be faulted for the simple
reason that the authority, who has to carry out the planned development of
the industrial estate, is in the best position to judge as to which land can be
exempted from the acquisition without jeopardizing the development
scheme. It is not possible for the court to sit in appeal over the exercise of
such satisfaction by the authority vested with the task of implementing the
development plan.
The learned counsel for the appellants urged that the decision taken
for exempting M/s Dinar Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., M/s Amar Elastomers (P)
Ltd. and M/s K.C. Fibre Ltd. was not a principled one and that there was no
uniform yardstick applied for exemption of the said units from acquisition. It
was urged that, although the State Government had ostensibly decided to
exempt the said three units on the basis of construction put up and industrial
units being set up, this was really not true in the case of these three units. In
our view, it is unnecessary for us to enter into this controversy. Even if we
assume that the three units, who were exempted, did not qualify under the
standard adopted by the State Government for exemption, at the highest, it
would make the exemption granted to them vulnerable. None of them was
made party to the writ petitions filed before the High Court, nor was any
relief claimed against them. Even assuming that the exemption granted to
the said three units was erroneous and illegal, Article 14 does not mandate
that the appellants should be granted similar illegal and unjustified relief. As
said by this Court in Union of India and Anr. v. International Trading
Co. and Anr. , to which one of us, (Shivaraj V. Patil, J.) was a party, (vide
Para 13):
"\005..It is not necessary to deal with that aspect because
two wrongs do not make one right. A party cannot claim
that since something wrong has been done in another
case direction should be given for doing another wrong.
It would not be setting a wrong right, but would be
perpetuating another wrong. In such matters there is no
discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment
on the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution of India (in
short "the Constitution) cannot be pressed into service in
such cases. What the concept of equal treatment
presupposes is existence of similar legal foothold. It
does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to
bring both wrongs on a par. Even if hypothetically it is
accepted that a wrong has been committed in some other
cases by introducing a concept of negative equality the
respondents cannot strengthen their case. They have to
establish strength of their case on some other basis and
not by claiming negative equality."
It is trite law that not only land but also structure on land can be
acquired under the Act. As to whether in a given set of circumstances certain
land should be exempted from acquisition only for the reason that some
construction had been carried out, is a matter of policy, and not of law. If
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
after considering all the circumstances, the State Government has taken the
view that exemption of the lands of the appellants would render askew the
development scheme of the industrial estate, it is not possible for the High
Court or this Court to interfere with the satisfaction of the concerned
authorities. We see no ground on which the appellants could have
maintained that their lands should be exempted from acquisition. Even if
three of the parties had been wrongly exempted from acquisition, that gives
no right to the appellants to seek similar relief.
It is rightly pointed out by the High Court that, merely because a
representation was made by the Director, Town and Country Planning, that
upon gift of certain land to the Gram Panchayat for widening of the passage,
permission for change of user of land would be granted, such a promise is
not one capable of being enforced against the State Government. The High
Court has rightly pointed out that, if the appellants are so desirous, they may
seek invalidation of the gifts in favour of the Gram Panchayat on the ground
of failure of the Director, Town and Country Planning to fulfil his
commitment. That, however, does not render the acquisition proceedings
illegal.
No other ground has been made out. In our view, therefore, no fault
can be found with the judgment rendered by the Division Bench. We find
no merit in the appeals, which are hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.