Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KASHMIR KATHA INDUSTRIES versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kashmir Katha Industries v. State of Haryana & Anr - CWP-13662-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 3896 (10 July 2006)

C.W.P.No.13662 of 2003 [1]

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P.No.13662 of 2003

Date of Decision: 6 -7 - 2006

Kashmir Katha Industries ........Petitioner v.

State of Haryana and another .........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.PATWALIA

***

Present: Mr.Bijender Dhankar, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr.S.K.Bishnoi, AAG, Haryana

for the respondents.

***

P.S.PATWALIA, J.

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as, `the Act') dated 15.2.2002 and 15.6.2002 respectively. At the time of hearing, the only argument raised by the petitioner was that the respondents have wrongly invoked the urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Act in the present case and deprived the petitioner of its right to raise objections under Section 5A of the Act. In response thereto the respondents have pointed out that in 50th

Year of Independence, the State of Haryana had published a New Industrial Policy in the year 1997 for rapid industrialisation of the State. The said policy contemplated the establishment of Industrial Parks/Estates falling within the National Capital Region as well as outside. An Industrial Estate had been developed at Kundli which is located on National Highway No.1 and C.W.P.No.13662 of 2003 [2]

falls within the National Capital Region. Notifications were issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act in August, 1997 and July, 1998 respectively for acquiring over 323 acres of land for development of Phase IV of Industrial Estate, Kundli. Even award for the same was announced on 15.12.1998. While acquiring the aforementioned land, a very small tract of land (about 4 kanals) which is subject matter of dispute in the present petition was inadvertently left out. This land was otherwise part of the land acquired in 1998. On this account, the development work in the area could not be undertaken and continuity of the project was hampered. It is therefore that the emergency provisions had to be invoked in the present case. The relevant extract of the written statement is as hereunder:- "It is submitted that in the above mentioned declared Industrial Policy, the Respondent State has provided for acquisition of about 400 acres of land for developing Phase-IV, Industrial Estate, Kundli.

The notification dated 05-08-1997 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued and thereafter the Notification dated 29-07-1998 under section 6 of the Act was issued for acquiring the land measuring 323 Acre 4 Kanal 8 Marla of village Kundli, Sersa & Nangal Kalan for development of Phase-IV of Industrial Estate, Kundli and the award of the same was announced on 15-12-1998. The true copy of the award dated 15-12-1998 is being annexed herewith as (Annexure R- 1).

That while acquiring the land measuring 323 Acre 4 Kanal 8 Marla, the land in dispute of the petitioner was left 2002 under section 4 of the `act' read with clause of Sub Section (2) of Section 17 of the Act was issued and ther5eafter vide C.W.P.No.13662 of 2003 [3]

Notification No.2/6/4-11B-II 98 dated 19-6-2002 under section 6 read with clause of sub Section (2) of Section 17 of the Act, the land measuring 4 Kanal 18 Marla of village Kundli including the land in dispute of the petitioner was acquired. The award of the said land was announced on 25-4-2003. Thus the land in dispute of the 1998 for development of Phase-IV of Industrial Estate, Kundli.

That the land in dispute of the petitioner was acquired under the emergency provisions of the Act as the development work could not be under taken and the continuity of project was hampered...." On going through the aforementioned averments, we are of the opinion that the respondents have invoked the emergency provisions after due application of mind and for a justified reason.

Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled Union of India and others v. Mukesh Hans etc. etc., AIR 2004 SC 4307. A reading of the judgment would show that it has been held therein that the record must show application of mind of relevant material for dispensing with the requirement of Section 5A of the Act. In the present case, we are satisfied that there is application of mind and good reasons for invoking the emergency provisions.

Apart from the aforementioned, it has also been pointed out by the State Government that a part of the petitioner's land had been acquired in the earlier acquisition in the Industrial Estate also. The petitioner had filed Civil Writ Petition No.4761 of 1999 challenging the said acquisition proceedings as well.

That writ petition as also a Bunch of other connected matters were dismissed by this Court on 8.4.2002 and 25.4.2003. It is further pointed out that land of the petitioners measuring 15 Kanals 3 Marlas on which he had constructed a building and was running an existing unit under the name of M/s Kashmir Katha Industries C.W.P.No.13662 of 2003 [4]

Private Limited was exempted/released under Section 6 of the Act, as it did not come under the way of planning. For the aforementioned reasons as well, we are not inclined to interfere in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

For the reasons aforementioned, the present writ petition is dismissed.

( P.S.PATWALIA )

JUDGE

( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA )

July 6, 2006. JUDGE

RC


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.