Shree Vishnu Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Govt. of Haryana and others

Hemant Gupta, J.—The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court claiming a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to exchange the land measuring 4 kanals 18 marlas. The said claim of the petitioner is based upon the communication dated 19.8.2008 (Annexure P.15) addressed to predecessor of the petitioner, wherein while considering the representation of the petitioner for release of 3 marlas of land, the consent of the predecessor of the petitioner was sought for exchange of the land before the exchange proposal could be worked out.

The petitioner has purchased the aforesaid land from M/s Sunrise Chemicals, vide sale deed dated 14.2.2008. M/s Sunrise Chemicals established a factory in the year 1979. In the year 1985, the said land was sought to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioner challenged the acquisition CWP No. 6440 of 2012 [ 2] proceedings claiming exemption of the land from acquisition by way of a writ petition filed before this Court. The said writ petition was taken up for consideration by Lok Adalat of this Court on 18.5.2000, wherein it was observed that there is a policy of the Haryana Government not to acquire the land where constructed buildings are already existing. In terms of the said observation, the aforesaid land was released from acquisition. Subsequently, the petitioner has sought change of land use for shopping complex, which was declined. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court against declining permission to change of land use, but said writ petition was withdrawn. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to claim exchange of land.

The petitioner is a purchaser of the land after the same was exempted. The petitioner has purchased the property knowing fully well about its present status. The petitioner cannot claim a writ of mandamus for exchange of the land for which the consent of the owner is necessary. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. Hence, the same is dismissed.