M/s Jindal Mectec Pvt. Ltd. now Kingspan Jindal Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Haryana & Anr.

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

The present order would dispose of three writ petitions i.e., CWP-6175-2025, CWP-6178-2025 and CWP-7113-2025 as common issues of law and facts arise in all the cases.

With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the facts are being taken from CWP-6175-2025.

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 29.07.2024 (Annexure P-25) whereby the release order dated 05.03.2008 issued by the State of Haryana has been withdrawn after more than 16 years. Other prayers have also been made in the writ petition.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and its directors were the owners of the land measuring 23 kanal 7 marla comprised in khasra nos.22/2, 23/1, 23/2, 19/1, 19/2, 19/3, 21/1/1, 22/1 situated in revenue estate of Village Narsinghpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon (now Gurugram). It is further submitted that an application was submitted on 07.03.1995 for the grant of permission for change of land use for the area measuring 4961 square yards for construction of building and using the land for industrial purpose regarding which land utilization certificate has been issued by the State Government and that the State Government had also granted the occupation certificate in respect of the industrial building on 08.05.1998. It is further submitted that vide order dated 27.06.1996, the final permission for change of land use was granted and the petitioner company got the registration under various regulations from various government authorities.

It is further submitted that respondent no.1 thereafter issued the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as “1894 Act”) proposing to acquire the land which included the land in question and that the petitioner has filed objections under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act stating that there was a factory running over the land since 1994, after duly obtaining CLU permission. It is however submitted that in spite of the same, the land of the petitioner was acquired under Section 6 of the 1894 Act and the petitioner thereafter submitted a representation and also filed a writ petition in the year 2005 and ultimately after taking into consideration that a large number of cases had been filed, the State Government had constituted a committee consisting of the Managing Director, Haryana Financial Corporation, the Director of Industries Haryana and also the Managing Director, HSIDC and the said Committee considered the case of the petitioner and issued the release letter for the release of the recommended portion. It is submitted that the petitioner was aggrieved since the said release letter was issued with respect to a part of the land, thus, the petitioner had made a request that the other portion of the land be also released and the said prayer was also considered by the Ministerial Committee which was duly constituted and the same was recommended and thereafter, the State Government approved the recommendation of the Committee vide order dated 05.03.2008. It is submitted that thereafter several certificates including the one issued by the Department of Fire were issued in favour of the petitioner.

It is submitted that however, without granting any opportunity of hearing, the respondent authorities vide order dated 29.07.2024 withdrew the release letter dated 05.03.2008. It is submitted that the petitioner, immediately on gaining knowledge, after submitting a representation, had filed the present writ petition. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that apart from other issues, the impugned action of the respondent authorities is violative of the principle of natural justice, in as much as, the release order in favour of the petitioner dated 05.03.2008 has been withdrawn on 29.07.2024 after 16 years without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is submitted that it is a matter of settled law that any action having civil consequences can be taken only after following the principle of natural justice.

Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the fact that no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners prior to the passing of the order dated 29.07.2024. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that in case the impugned order is set aside on the said point, the same should not be construed as an estoppel against the respondents from passing a fresh order after considering the pleas raised by the petitioners in pursuance of the show cause notice to be issued by the respondent-State.

It is not in dispute that in none of the three cases, an opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners, prior to the passing of the impugned order, withdrawing the release letter and thus the act of the respondent authorities was in violative of the principle of natural justice.

Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, all the three writ petitions are partly allowed and the impugned orders dated 29.07.2024 (Annexure P-25 in CWP-6175-2025, Annexure P-19 in CWP-6178-2025 and Annexure P-15 in CWP-7113-2025) are set aside with the following observations / directions:-

ii) It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of the cases and it would be open to the respondent authorities to pass a fresh order after issuing show cause notice and after hearing the petitioners or their representatives so as to comply with the principle of natural justice.