The Western Manufacturing Co. (Delhi) Private Ltd. vs The State of Haryana and others

The challenge in the present writ petition is to notification issued u/s 4 (Annexure P-l) dated March 18, 1985 and the follow up declaration issued u/s 6 (Annexure P-2) on January 16, 1986, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, vide which besides other land, the land of the petitioner comprised in Khasra No. 1442/2, measuring 121/2 Biswas, i.e. about 1900 sq. yards, in Khewat No. 1481/1375 and Khatoni No. 1967/1834, along with power connection was acquired. Besides, the land in Khasra No. 1448 measuring 1 Bigha 6 Biswas, i.e. about 3930 sq. yards, in Khewat No. 1595/1486 and Khatoni No. 2139, was also acquired. Even though number of grounds have been raised in the present petition, but the only point pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioner with a view to get exemption from acquisition is that the aforesaid land along with built up factory on Khasra No. 1442/2 was purchased along with power connection from Mahindra Hardwares on 5-11-1963, and additional land in Khasra No. 1448 with a view to expand its factory was purchased on 26-10-1964. The Additional land was purchased with a view to accommodate assembling and load testing of the products manufactured by the petitioner-company. The petitioner-company is a small scale unit registered as small scale industry engaged since 1963 in the manufacture of material handling equipment, i.e. conveyors, elevators etc. The area under the acquisition being constructed one, the policy of the Government so as not to acquire the constructed building be it a residential or commercial, which so came to be constructed prior to the issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Act, would not permit the respondents to acquire the aforesaid land of the petitioner.

This petition has been opposed by the State of Haryana and written statement has been filed by Mr. I. M. Khunger, Deputy Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. It has been pleaded in the written statement that as per revenue record available, the petitioner was owner of the land bearing khasra Nos. 1448 and 5235/1444 and Khasra No. 1442 is stated to be owned by one Deep Chand, Balwant Singh etc. In so far as construction over the land is concerned, the case of the respondents is that factory building etc. abutting a road have not been notified u/s 6 of the Act and are, therefore, not subject-matter of the acquisition. No declaration u/s 6 of the Act with regard to the said land was issued even though notification u/s 4 of the Act with regard to the entire land, subject-matter of the dispute was notified. Only a small portion of a room and shed, portion of vacant land and building wall, which comes on the proposed road and which in no circumstances can be left out, is proposed to be acquired and for which declaration u/s 6 of the Act has been issued.

Mr. Naubat Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the Government has come with a clear policy so as not to acquire the constructed buildings be it residential, commercial or industrial construction regarding which was completed prior to issuance of the notification u/s 4 of the Act. The petitioner had purchased the built-up factory in the year 1963 and obviously when the notification u/s 4 of the Act came into being, the whole area was constructed one.

Learned counsel appearing for the State, however, contests the aforesaid stand of the petitioner and contends that even though it is a policy of the Government not to acquire the constructed portions, yet in some compelling circumstances, this policy has to be deviated. In the present case, only a small portion, as referred to above, was ultimately acquired by issuing notification u/s 6 of the Act and the said area was in the alignment of a proposed road and that the said road could not be taken from any other site on technical advice. It is also stated by the learned counsel that but for the same small portion mentioned above, the entire constructed portion of the petitioner had been left from the array of acquisition.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the stand taken by the State so as to carve out an exception in the facts and circumstances of the case is entirely justified and has to be protected. The fact that the area, subject-matter of the notification u/s 6 of the Act falls in the alighment of the proposed road, has not been controverted by the learned counsel nor any replication has been filed. It is, thus, proved that the same small portion, that has been acquired, falls on the road and that the said road has necessarily to be carved out from the place from it is proposed. That being so, the general interest has to give way to the policy of the State Government. It is true that the Government has made a policy not to acquire the constructed buildings, but it can by no stretch of imagination be said that the said policy can have no exception whatsoever. I have already held in Civil Writ Petition No. 905 of 1986 that where it is not possible to leave vacant space around the constructed area for various reasons, like the area under construction made comes under roads, parks or other public places, then it is better for the State to acquire the whoie property because un-acquired property cannot be left in such a way that the same has become totally useless. It was repeatedly enquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the left out portion can be put to a meaningful use even if a small portion of the land is acquired. Even though, it has been so pleaded in the petition, the learned counsel is unable to answer the question. From the narration of the facts, given above, it is clear that a road has to pass through a small stretch of land, belonging to the petitioner, and when the authorities are acquiring the said land for the said purpose, in my view, they are not deviating from its policy, but for an exceptional situation, which can always be permissible.

Finding no merits in this appeal (petition), I dismiss the same. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

Petition dismissed.