Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 175 (PNJ)

Aadhunik Woolleen Mills v. State Of Haryana

2010-01-08

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, M.M.KUMAR

body2010
Judgment M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. This order shall dispose of a bunch of 22 petitions2 as common questions of law and facts are involved. However, facts are being referred from cwp No.17275 of 2000. 2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges orders dated 26.6.2000, issued by the Estate Officer-respondent No.3 directing the petitioners to execute the agreement in the proforma as also to deposit the amount of development charges @ Rs.200/- per square yard failing which the sanction accorded by the Government for release of land was deemed to have been cancelled (P-11 to P-13 ). The petitioners have also challenged public notice dated 10.11.2000 (P-17) issued by the Haryana Urban development Authority (for brevity, huda) whereby general public has been informed that those land owners whose land was released by HUDA and they have not deposited the amount of development charges, they are required to deposit development charges with the Estate Officer, HUDA within 15 days of issuance of notice, otherwise their release orders would be deemed to be cancelled, their buildings/factories would be treated as illegal construction and action would be taken against them as per HUDA regulations. A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents not to recover the development charges from the petitioners. 3. The land belonging to the petitioners was sought to be acquired by issuance of notification under Sec.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, the Act) on 10.5.1989 (P-1 ). The petitioners filed objections to the acquisition under Sec.5a of the Act on 12.6.1989 (P-2 and P-3 ). Eventually, a declaration under Sec.6 of the Act was issued on 9.5.1990 (P-4 ). However, the land belonging to the petitioners was released from acquisition on 6.5.1992 (P-7, P-8 and P-9) by passing identically worded orders. The order of release makes an interesting reading, which is as under:- " In the above said matter, you are informed that the Haryana Government is ready to release 2b-0b, 2b-14b of land/construction situated in Urban Estate, Panipat, sector 6, 7 and 8, Khasra No.658/1 belonging to Shri Surinder Kumar subject to general conditions. An agreement has to be entered into with the applicant regarding conditions of release and for the released land a proportionate amount of development charge has also to be recovered. An agreement has to be entered into with the applicant regarding conditions of release and for the released land a proportionate amount of development charge has also to be recovered. With regard to the proforma of agreement and rate of development charges, Chief administrator, HUDA Manimajra (U. T) Chandigarh shall inform separately. " (emphasis added) The next day i. e. on 7.5.1992, award was announced and possession of the land was delivered to HUDA to develop and utilise the land as industrial, institutional, residential and commercial area for Sectors 6, 7 and 8 Panipat. It is significant to notice that the release of the land to the petitioners was subject to the condition of execution of an agreement on the standard form, which was to be duly attested by the First Class Officer. It was clearly stipulated in the release order that a proportionate amount of development charges have to be recovered. 4 The petitioners despite issuance of letter for execution of the agreement did not execute the agreement, which eventually resulted in issuance of notice from HUDA-respondent Nos.2 and 3 directing the petitioners to execute the agreement on the proforma which was sent along with the communication dated 26.6.2000 (P-11) and also to pay development charges @ Rs.200/- per square yard, totaling to Rs.10,80,000/-. It was also clarified that in the absence of payment and execution of the agreement, the sanction order releasing the land would be deemed to be cancelled. Such communications were sent to all the petitioners, as is evident from the letter dated 26.6.2000 (P- 11, P-12 and p-13 ). However, the petitioners have chosen to contest the aforesaid communication by sending reply, vide letters dated 26.7.2000 (P-14 to P-16 ). Thereafter, on 10.11.2000 (P-17), a public notice was issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3 for information to general public stating that those land owners whose land was released by HUDA and who have not deposited the amount of development charges, they must deposit the development charges with the Estate Officer, HUDA within 15 days of the notice otherwise the release orders were deemed to be cancelled. The names of the petitioners also figured in the aforesaid public notice. 5. In the written statement the aforesaid broad factual position has not been disputed. The names of the petitioners also figured in the aforesaid public notice. 5. In the written statement the aforesaid broad factual position has not been disputed. However, it has been asserted that the development charges are realised in pursuance to the policies of the State/huda as the owners of the released land/property are likely to be benefited from various amenities provided to the land under acquisition. The stand taken by the HUDA is that a huge chunk of land is set apart for development activities apart from spending huge amount on the roads, sewerage and other public amenities. Reference in that regard has been made to the State policies dated 14.8.1996 (R-3/1) and 24.7.2000. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length. Mr. P. K. Mutneja, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the area belonging to the petitioners is situated within the municipal limits and at the time when the building was constructed, development charges were paid to the Municipal Committee and, therefore, the petitioners are under no obligation to pay development charges once over again. Learned counsel has further submitted that once the land belonging to the petitioners is released, it is not to be developed by the HUDA-respondent Nos.2 and 3 and whatever development is to be undertaken, it has to be executed by the petitioners alone. Placing reliance on Sec.38 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for brevity, the HUDA Act), learned counsel has submitted that Section 38 does not contemplate charging any development fee etc. from the owners of the released land. According to the learned counsel, Sec.38 only talks about charging for the extension of amenities which are to be extended on individual basis. According to the learned counsel, the State government while releasing the land under Sec.48 of the Act in fact was required to compensate the petitioners for incurring expenditure on prosecution of their cases for the release of their land and other damages suffered by the petitioners and, therefore, there is no question of seeking payment of external development charges under the policy. 7. Mr. Kamal Sehgal and Mr. K. L. Suneja, learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the conditions of the release order clearly postulate the payment of development charges as is evident from the perusal of all those orders. 7. Mr. Kamal Sehgal and Mr. K. L. Suneja, learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the conditions of the release order clearly postulate the payment of development charges as is evident from the perusal of all those orders. In that regard our attention has once again been drawn to the release order dated 6.5.1992 (P-6, P-7 and P-8 ). It was accordingly required by the petitioners to adhere to the conditions of release failing which they were to face grave consequences of cancellation of release order, especially when they have failed to execute the agreement in terms of the release order. They have emphasised that according to the policies (R-3/1) the external development charges are required to be paid, which is consistent with the conditions postulated in the release order. Merely because the petitioners have not executed the agreement would not mean that they are not liable to pay the external development charges, else they are to face grave consequences of the cancellation of release order. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the only question which arises for determination is whether the petitioners are liable to pay external development charges. It has remained un-disputed that in the order releasing their land/construction situated in Sector 6, 7 and 8, Urban Estate, panipat, there is a specific stipulation that such like owners have to execute an agreement with the respondents with regard to conditions of release and for release of land a proportionate amount of development charges has to be recovered. The petitioners have not executed any agreement incorporating the conditions of release of land despite the fact that they were aware that in the absence of executing the agreement in accordance with the release order, the release orders were deemed to be cancelled automatically. Obviously, the petitioners have not made any statement going to the extreme of cancellation of release of their land and withdrawal of the release orders. The petitioners cannot reprobate and approbate. Once the order releasing the land has incorporated various conditions then all those conditions are required to be fulfilled by the petitioners. One of the condition is that for the release of land/construction, a proportionate amount of development charges is recoverable and accordingly individual notices for recovery of development charges were firstly issued on 26.6.2000 (P-11, P-12 and p-13) and thereafter even public notice was issued in Panipat Bhaskar (P-17 ). One of the condition is that for the release of land/construction, a proportionate amount of development charges is recoverable and accordingly individual notices for recovery of development charges were firstly issued on 26.6.2000 (P-11, P-12 and p-13) and thereafter even public notice was issued in Panipat Bhaskar (P-17 ). The agencies like HUDA incurred considerable expenditure by not only developing the land and providing amenities but also by leaving huge area of the total land acquired by it by providing such common utility services such as roads, streets, parks etc. Huge expenditure has also been incurred for providing civic amenities such as drinking water, sewerage, electricity, roads, storm-water drainage etc. In para 2 of the written statement filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 it has been specifically averred that 40% of the total land acquired and given to HUDA for development is left out for providing such like common utility services. The policy of the HUDA dated 14.8.1996 (R-3/1 Colly)is also clear which fixes the development charges for released land and also in respect of cases where change of land use in the Urban Estate/controlled area of the State is permitted. According to the policy, the development charges for residential and industrial areas have been calculated and have been made applicable even to the released land. The policy has been further modified on 24.7.2000 (R-3 Colly ). The rationale of the policy appears to be that once a piece of land/construction is released from acquisition then the area, which is acquired being appurtenant to the area/construction released would also enjoy the fruit of development and amenities. If the property of the petitioners which has been released, was contiguous to the land/construction which has been acquired, if follows that the petitioners are also bound to get benefit of various facilities which are provided in the form of road, streets, parks etc. They would also enjoy the other civic amenities on which huge expenditure is incurred such as drinking water, sewerage, electricity, roads, storm-water drainage etc. When the development of such a nature takes place in the area then the price of the property also goes up and the petitioners are bound to be benefited in a number of aspects. Therefore, we do not see any irrationality or illegality in imposition of external development charges in pursuance to the aforesaid policies. When the development of such a nature takes place in the area then the price of the property also goes up and the petitioners are bound to be benefited in a number of aspects. Therefore, we do not see any irrationality or illegality in imposition of external development charges in pursuance to the aforesaid policies. Even otherwise the aforesaid policies have not been challenged by the writ petitioners. 9. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners based on section 48 of the Act would not require any detailed consideration because no claim for damages on account of proposal to acquire the land of the petitioners have ever been made before any authority nor there are any averments to that effect in the pleadings. Likewise, the argument based on Sec.38 of the HUDA act would also not require any detailed examination because the respondents have categorically admitted that Sec.38 of the HUDA Act does not apply. 10. An additional argument has been raised in CWP Nos.17381, 17097, 17377, 17218 and 17315 of 2000, wherein the Municipal Council, panipat, has filed its written statement. The categorical stand taken is that the land/construction belonging to the petitioner (s) is not situated within the municipal limits of Municipal Council, Panipat. At no stage any site plan was submitted and, therefore, there was no question of sanctioning the same or obtaining any amount/fee/charges in lieu of development charges by the municipal Council, Panipat. The writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Therefore, for active misrepresentation on the part of those petitioners of CWP Nos.17381, 17097, 17377, 17218 and 17315 of 2000, we impose cost of Rs.20,000/- each. Their cases have also been considered on merit and the issues raised are covered by the instant order. No other argument has been raised. 11. As a sequel to the aforementioned discussion, these petitions fails and the same are accordingly dismissed.