Habitat Estate Private Limited vs State of Haryana

Surya Kant, J.—The petitioner impugns the notifications dated 13.05.2010 (Annexure P-1) and 12.05.2011 (Annexure P-5) issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), respectively, as also the Award dated 10.05.2013 (Annexure P-6) in respect of acquisition of its land fully described in para Nos. 3 & 4 of the writ petition.

The petitioner''s land forms part of the land measuring more than 433 acres, acquired by the State of Haryana for the development of Industrial Sectors 15, 16 & 17 at Dharuhera, by the HSIIDC.

Besides various other grounds, one of the plea taken by the petitioner is that it applied for the grant of CLU permission for its land which has been declined for wholly insufficient and invalid reasons.

It may be mentioned here that the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, vide one of the impugned order dated 15.11.2013 (Annexure P-7) has declined to grant CLU, observing as follows:-

...I have examined all the relevant record and the submissions made by the representative appearing on behalf of the applicant-Company. It is not disputed that the land applied for grant of license has been acquired by the State Government in the Industries and Commerce Department vide notifications dated 13.05.2010 and 12.05.2011 issued u/s 4 & 6 respectively and award has been announced on 10.05.2013. Thus, you have not clear title on the said land as per requirement of Section 3(2) of the Act of 1975. Even otherwise, in SLP No. 28422 of 2011 titled as Kishore Chabbra versus State of Haryana and others, the Hon''ble Supreme Court vide interim order dated 13.02.2012 has observed that the State shall be free to implement the policy instructions dated 26.10.2007 only in appropriate deserving cases. The release of land for grant of license is not covered under this category. Therefore, your request for grant of license cannot be considered....

It is noteworthy that the petitioner applied for the grant of CLU permission after issuance of notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act.

We find that the above-mentioned acquisition was subject-matter of challenge in a bunch of writ petitions almost on identical grounds including the plea taken by the writ petitioners that they had applied for grant of CLU permission which was arbitrarily declined to them. Those writ petitions were disposed of by this Court with certain directions vide order dated 29.11.2013 passed in CWP No. 14340 of 2011 (Sultan Singh and others versus State of Haryana and others) and other connected cases. The acquisition as well as its ''public purpose'', however, in principal was upheld.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears to us that no additional relief can be granted to the petitioner except in terms of the directions already issued in Sultan Singh and others'' case (supra). We thus, dispose of this writ petition in the same terms.

Ordered accordingly.

Dasti.