AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K. Merathia, J.—Heard the parties at length on the merits of the claims and contentions of the interveners in I.A. No. 896 of 2007.
Heavy Engineering Corporation (HEC for short) was established by the first leaders of the country with an object that it will be of great help in the development of the Nation. As it happens usually with the Public/Government Sector undertakings, it became sick. On the recommendation of the Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), the present winding up proceeding (Company Petition No. 5 of 2004) was started. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4513 of 2004 was filed by HEC against the order of BIFR.
Due to proactive role of this Court, with the cooperation of the Central Government/State Government and others; and under the dynamic management leadership, with cooperation of employees fortunately it has revived.
For the purpose of revival, the Central Government and the State Government have approved revival packages, which are being acted upon by the parties.
I.A. No. 1701 of 2009 and I.A. No. 1809 of 2009 and the Affidavit dated 2.6.2009 have been filed by the HEC, Central Government and the State Government respectively, by way of joint affidavits in compliance and pursuance to the Revival Packages with a prayer to dispose of these proceedings (Company Petition No. 5 of 2004 along with W.P.(C) No. 4513 of 2004), in terms of the said joint affidavits; and for passing appropriate orders by declaring that the Company-HEC is now free from winding up proceedings; and accordingly for dropping the winding up proceedings against HEC.
One of the terms of the revival packages is that HEC will transfer 158 acres of land to Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) against the dues of CISF and for establishing its headquarters.
This transfer is being objected by the interveners of I.A. No. 896 of 2007.
Mr. Sohail Anwar, learned senior counsel appearing for the interveners submitted as follows. Regarding the said lands, a suit being Title Suit No. 24 of 1993 instituted by the interveners (plaintiffs) is pending in the Civil Court; from the evidence on affidavit filed on behalf of HEC it will appear that the said lands were never acquired by HEC and therefore HEC cannot transfer them to CISF; the interveners are continuing in possession even after acquisition in the year 1959-60 and thus it would appear that possession of the lands in question was not taken by the State Government/HEC under Land Acquisition Act; the said lands are unutilised and surplus with HEC and therefore the State Government should be directed to resume back the same and return them to the interveners in terms of Clause 3(a) and (6) of the Deed of Conveyance executed between the State Government and the HEC; in terms of the letters dated 12.1.1979 and 11.6.2003 issued by the Revenue Department of the Government of Bihar/Jharkhand surplus lands be returned to the persons from whom it was acquired; a letter dated 13.7.1993 was issued by the District Land Acquisition Officer, which shows that there was a move for resumption of surplus land of HEC; in view of the minutes of meeting of HEC held on 19.6.1962 the interveners should not be disturbed; a large number of persons have encroached over lands/houses and are continuing in unauthorized occupation due to political patronage but only the interveners are sought to be displaced.
On the other hand, learned Advocate General submitted as follows.
(a) The interveners cannot take advantage of pendency of the said suit and the evidence on affidavit filed on behalf of HEC. Denying and disputing the contentions of the plaintiffs/interveners, it was clearly asserted in the written statement filed by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 i.e. the State Government and its authorities, that the suit lands were acquired under a regular proceeding and possession was taken and delivered to HEC, which is exercising its possession by using the same for its purposes, and if any person has come in possession of any portion of the said lands thereafter, they are liable to be evicted. Further it was clearly said at the end of paragraph 25 of the evidence on affidavit that the details and description of the acquired lands were subject to correction/verification, which can only be made by the defendants-State Authorities, by producing their records concerning acquisition of the lands in question of villages-Kute and Murma. Then it was clearly said in paragraph 26 of such evidence that the tenants of the lands were dispossessed and possession was taken by the Land Acquisition Department and only thereafter the lands were handed over to HEC, which has received the same on behalf of the Government of India being a Company fully controlled by the Department of Heavy Industries. It was clearly denied that the plaintiffs (interveners) were in possession of the suit land belonging to HEC, which was acquired under the process of Land Acquisition Act.
(b) It was further pointed out that a prayer for injunction was made by the plaintiffs (interveners) but after hearing the parties, it was rejected on 16.10.1993 with the following observations:
It may be borne in mind that on the own showing of the plaintiff as disclosed from the averments in the plaint that way back in the year 1959 under the provision of the land Acquisition Act the suit lands were acquired by the State of Bihar through her agency for the purpose of the HEC Ltd., Ranchi (Defendant No. 4) and the compensation was paid to the rightful owners.
The contention made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff as mentioned earlier to this effect that although the acquisition proceeding was taken and some paltry compensation was paid to the land owners but the possession thereof was not taken and handed over to defendant No. 4 in pen and papers and the plaintiffs or their predecessor in interest retained their possession and still they are in physical possession over the suit lands appear to be absurd and preposterous in view of the notorious fact that the HEC Ranchi has earned a name and fame in the world community. Big machines and other articles are transported to foreign countries. It is the known fact that the HEC Ranchi Hatia has a big complex of its own covering a vast track of lands.
It has been mentioned in the plaint that the HEC has fallen into shamble and its authorities are believed to be interested in denying the title of the plaintiffs in the suit lands and are further interested in wrongful and forcibly dispossessing them therefrom. This averment exposes the mala fide and illegal intention of the plaintiffs to lay false and fallacious claim over the suit land having no spinal column to sustain and endure it. Having sensed and gauged the affairs of the HEC falling into a quandary the plaintiffs appear to have combined together to assert their baseless possession over the suit land in bid to capture the suit lands in the event of the HEC becoming helpless and hopeless in running its factory.
This order became final between the parties.
(c) Learned Advocate General further relied on the unreported judgment dated 14th August, 2006 passed in CWIC No. 85 of 1998 (R)-Lal Brajeshwar Nath Shahdeo and analogous cases. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:
The petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to take a decision for release of unutilised lands (surplus lands) mentioned in the letter dated 13.7.1993 written by the Additional Collector, Ranchi to the District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi in terms of the policy decision of the State of Bihar and for other reliefs.
According to the petitioners, though the lands were acquired in 1960 but the lands in question have not been used by the Heavy Engineering Corporation (H.E.C. for short). Therefore, it is submitted that the lands may be returned to them in view of the policy of the State of Bihar contained in letter dated 12.1.1979 (Annexure 6). The petitioners further rely on some letters of the Deputy Commissioner and the District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi to show that H.E.C. has surplus lands.
The H.E.C. has disputed the correctness and validity of the said letters. H.E.C. has further said that the vacant lands are being used for allied purposes for generating funds towards working capital as per the package approved by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. Learned Counsel appearing for H.E.C. submitted that H.E.C. is one of the nation''s pride and is mother of industries; and every body should wish and try that it revives and runs.
Mr. H.K. Mehta, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State of Jharkhand submitted that the Policy of the State of Bihar has got no statutory force and thus such policy and the letters of District Officers will not give right to the petitioners to get back the land. He further submitted that the acquisition proceedings were complete way back in the year 1959-1960 and the petitioners have not said that compensation was not paid to them or possession of the lands was not taken. He, therefore, submitted that the lands in question cannot be returned to the petitioners, even if H.E.C. is not using them. He further submitted that the State Government is also considering as to how the surplus lands, if any, can be used. He submitted that when certain policy of the State Government was relied for restoration of land; it was held by Supreme Court in the case of Govt. of A.P. and Another Vs. Syed Akbar, that any executive order, inconsistent with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act is invalid. He relied on paragraph 14 of the said judgment which reads as follow:
From the position of law made clear in the aforementioned decisions, it follows that (1) u/s 16 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short "the Act") the land acquired vests in the Government absolutely free from all encumbrances;(2) the land acquired for a public purpose could be utilised for any other public purpose; and
(3) the acquired land which is vested in the Government free from all encumbrances cannot be reassigned or reconveyed to the original owner merely on the basis of an executive order.
In my opinion, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. They could not show under what provision of law, the purported circular/policy decision of the Government of Bihar, was issued. They also could not show how they derive right of restoration of land on the basis of the letters of the District Officers, especially when they are denied and disputed by H.E.C. Such circular/policy/letters relied by the petitioners are clearly inconsistent with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Moreover, the petitioners could not prove that H.E.C. has got surplus land. Even if some lands have not been used, it cannot be said that they are surplus. In my opinion, this case is fully covered by the judgment of Govt. of A.P. (Supra) .
Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. However, no costs.
(d) He further submitted that the intra court appeals filed against the said judgments were also dismissed by judgment dated 6.11.2007, the relevant portion of which reads as follows;-.
From a bare of Section 48(1) quoted above it is clear that no doubt, this provision gives liberty to the Government to withdraw from acquisition of any land but at the same time, the said withdrawal of acquisition can be only of those lands of which possession has not been taken.
In the present case, it is nobody''s case that after acquisition of the land in question, the possession of the lands acquired were not taken by the H.E.C., rather, in this case from the records it appears that after acquisition of the land, possession of the lands were taken by H.E.C. and compensation were also paid to the land owners.
It has not been disputed in the present case that the lands in question were validly acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the possession of the same was also taken. Therefore, by virtue of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the lands were acquired vested absolutely with the Government. In our view, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the Writ Petitions relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Govt. of A.P. v. Syed Akbar (Supra) wherein, it has been held that
(i) u/s 16 of the Lands Acquisition Act, the lands acquired vests in the Government absolutely from from all encumbrances;
(ii) the lands acquired for the public purpose, could be utilised for any other public purpose.
(iii) the acquired lands which is vested in the Government free from all encumbrances, cannot be reassigned or reconveyed to the original owner merely on the basis of an executive order.
We are of the view that the policy decision, if any taken by the Government of Bihar, as contained in Annexure-7, in fact runs contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the decision of the Supreme Court and therefore the same cannot be of any help to the appellant. In such a situation, we hold that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petitions for the reasons stated in the impugned order.
Accordingly, we do not find any merit in all these three Letters Patent Appeal and as such, all the three appeals are dismissed.
The order dated 11.4.2008 passed by Supreme Court was also referred to show that the S.L.Ps. filed against the said judgments were dismissed as withdrawn. However, review petitions have been filed, which are pending in this Court.
(e). It was further pointed out that when HEC sought to transfer lands in favour of CISF and Cricket Association, the State of Jharkhand, as advised then, filed an intra court appeal being L.P.A. No. 178 of 2007, in which the following order was passed on 16.10.2008 disposing of the appeal.
8/16.10.2008 Heard the parties.
Pursuant to the order dated 1.9.2008 an affidavit has been filed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand stating that the Government has reconsidered the issue of transfer of land in favour of CISF and Cricket Association, and it has in principle accepted for transfer of land in favour of CISF and Jharkhand State Cricket Association.
It is further submitted that the State Government has no objection if HEC transfers 31.70 Acres of land to Jharkhand Cricket Association for construction of Cricket Stadium if the said land does not come within the area of land 2342 Acres which is to be transferred in favour of the State government as per the Cabinet approval.
The learned Counsel appearing for the HEC submitted that the land transferred to CISF and Cricket Association is not included in the land that shall be transferred to the State Government.
Having regards to the statement made in the affidavit and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the HEC, no further order need be passed in the instant appeal.
This appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
(f) Learned Advocate General further submitted that a review petition being Civil Review No. 101 of 2008 was filed on behalf of the interveners (plaintiffs), raising similar issues which was dismissed on 28.5.2009 by passing the following order.
Heard Mr. Sohail Anwar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the review application wherein petitioners seek review of the judgment and order dated 16.10.2008 passed in L.P.A. No. 178 of 2007.
The main ground of review is that petitioners were not heard before the order was passed although they filed intervention petition claiming portion of the land owned and possessed by them. It is stated in the review petition that title suit being T.S. No. 24/1993 was filed by the villagers against the State of Bihar now Jharkhand and the HEC Ltd. which is pending for adjudication.
After hearing learned Counsel, we are of the view that there does not appear any error on the face of the order. Hence, we do not find any reason to review the order. This review petition is, therefore, dismissed.
However, we observe that petitioners will not be prejudices by reason of this order and the suit will be decided on its own merit
(g) It was, therefore, submitted that the interveners (plaintiffs) cannot take advantage of the said letters/minutes, which run contrary to the law and cannot be allowed to object the transfer of land to CISF after they failed in their attempts in the suit and in the review petition as aforesaid.
In view of the facts and circumstances and the judgments and orders, noticed above, the contentions and claims of the interveners are liable to be rejected. In the suit filed by the interveners with similar claims, prayer for injunction was rejected by the trial court way back on 16.10.1993 and such order became final and binding between the parties. Similar claims were rejected in the aforesaid CWJC No. 85 of 1998 (R) by the judgment dated 14.8.2006 affirmed in L.P.A. No. 503 of 2006 on 6.11.2007. It has been inter alia held that the lands were validly acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act; possession of the same was also taken; the acquired lands vested absolutely with the Govt; the acquired lands cannot be reassigned or reconveyed to the original owners merely on the basis of the aforesaid executive orders relied by the interveners; and that the aforesaid letters, run contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the decisions of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also did not interfere with the said judgment. Thereafter, review petitions have been filed in this Court. But it is pertinent to note that the interveners filed the aforesaid review petition i.e. Civil Review No. 101 of 2008 raising similar claims and contentions, which was dismissed, by the division bench, affirming the order of transfer of land to CISF, even after considering that the suit is pending.
In the case reported in Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. A. Viswam (Dead) by Lrs., , it was observed in paragraph 10:
...It is true that normally possession is nine times the title. If that principle is extended to public acquisition by illegal squatting, erstwhile owner has compensation as well as possession of the land by encroachment upon his erstwhile land and claim that he remained in possession. Such construction would defeat the public purpose.....
So far as the complain of the interveners, regarding other encroachers and unauthorized occupants is concerned, the HEC and the State Government, will take immediate steps to remove/evict all the encroachers/unauthorised occupants in accordance with law.
In the result, the contentions and claims made in I.A. No. 896 of 2007 are rejected, and it is accordingly dismissed.
The prayers made in I.A. No. 1701 of 2009 filed by HEC, I.A. No. 1809 of 2009 filed by the Central Government and Affidavit filed on 2.6.2009 by the State of Jharkhand are allowed. The winding up proceeding being C.P. No. 5 of 2004 with W.P.(C) No. 4513 of 2004 are disposed off in terms of these I.As., affidavits and the revival packages. HEC is now free from winding up proceeding. The Central Government, the State Government and the HEC and other concerned parties are directed to act in terms of Revival Packages.
Let us hope and wish that past is not repeated, and HEC, the nation''s pride and mother of industries fulfills its object of serving the Nation.
With these findings, observations and directions, C.P. No. 5 of 2004, W.P.(C) No. 4513 of 2004 and all I.As therein are disposed of.