Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 433 (PNJ)

Harkishan v. Union Of India And Others

2011-02-03

JASBIR SINGH, RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2011
Judgment Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. 1. By way of present writ petition, which has been filed in the public interest, a challenge has been made to the action of the State of Haryana, firstly in proceeding to acquire a big chunk of land for the alleged purpose of development of the land for residential and commercial area for Sector 30, Gurgaon and then proceeding to release the same in favour of respondent No. 3 i.e. East India Hotels Limited vide communications dated 19.9.1995 (Annexure P-3) and 4.1.1996 (Annexure P-4) and thereafter permitting the sale of the aforesaid land by respondent No. 3 in favour of respondents No. 4 and 5 in violation of the conditions imposed vide release orders Annexures P-3 and P-4 and then issuing notifications dated 6.12.2006 (Annexure P-7) and notification dated 19.3.2007 (Annexure P-8) under the provisions of the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 by creating a nexus between the State Government and respondents No. 3 to 5 to defraud the residents of the area with a further prayer to quash the release orders Annexures P-3 and P-4 sales made in favour of respondents No. 4 and 5 vide Annexures P-5 and P-6 and also the notifications Annexures P-7 and P-8 or any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. As per the averments made in this petition, the State of Haryana issued notification dated 30.1.1989 (Annexure P-1) under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( in short the "Act") to acquire an area measuring 210.38 acres in village Silokhera and an area measuring 5.20.acres in village Sukhrali for a public purpose namely utilization thereof for residential and commercial area for Sector 30, Gurgaon. However, notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued only for an area measuring 169 acres in village Silokhera and area measuring 2.13 acres in village Sukhrali. It is also a matter of record that an award was passed on 22.1.1992 only for a land measuring 8.64 acres (i.e. 7.01 acres in village Silokhera and 1.63 acres in village Sukhrali). It is further averred that the State of Haryana vide communication dated 19.9.1995 released 30 acres of land in favour of respondent No. 3 i.e. a Company, namely, East India Hotels Limited. It is further averred that the State of Haryana vide communication dated 19.9.1995 released 30 acres of land in favour of respondent No. 3 i.e. a Company, namely, East India Hotels Limited. The operative part of the aforesaid communication reads as follows : "This has reference to your representation dated 14.2.1995 to the Honble Chief Minister, Haryana, on the above mentioned subject and it is to inform you that your proposal has been examined and Government of Haryana is considering to release 30 acres of land from acquisition forming part of the under mentioned facilities out of 37 acres 2 marlas land belong to you in Sector 30, Gurgaon :- i . Land for Hospital Project 15.00 acres ii Land required for Hotel Management Institute and its appurtenant and ancillary building 7.5 acres iii. Land needed for Executive Apartment and Staff Housing 5 acres iv. Land under green belt 2.5 acres The above mentioned 30 acres of land is being considered for release subject tot he following conditions :- 1. Released land shall not be sold without the approval of concerned Department of Govt. of Haryana. 2. Released land shall be used only for the facilities proposed to be set up by you as indicated above covering 30 acres of land proposed to be released. 3. Executive Apartments and Staff houses constructed on the released land including those on the 5 acres of land should not be sold and should be exclusively used for housing officers, other professionals and officials associated with the various facilities being developed. 4. You should obtain the permission for change of land use from the Director, Town and Country Planning, Department, Haryana, Chandigarh and an application for the same in the prescribed proforma with the relevant documents and fees should be submitted by you within 30 days of getting the 30 acres land released from acquisition. If obtaining change of land use permission from the concerned department is delayed for reasons which can be ascribed to deficiencies on your part by more than three months from the date of releasing of this land the terms of release as mentioned here and as would be incorporated in the agreement are liable to be changed at the instance of this Department and the Director, Department of Urban Estates, Haryana, would be at liberty to rescind the agreement for release of land unilaterally. Further such penalties in the nature of forfeiting the whole or part of the guaranteed sum (as per condition No. 6 and 7) are liable to be levied on you. 5. You should complete the construction of the said facilities viz. Hospital complex, Institute of Hotel Management and its appurtenant and Ancillary buildings and Executive Apartments and staff housing in a period of three years from the date of sanction of building plans which are to be submitted by you within a period of one month from the date of obtaining the change of land use permission. 6. The area under green belt as per the development plan of Gurgaon has to be maintained by you and no construction whatsoever would be allowed in the said green belt, statutory green belt as per the development plan has to be maintained no matter whether the area covered under that is more or less than the 2.5 acres of green belt projected by you in the representation. That is to say in the event of area under statutory green belt being less than 2.5 acres (which can only be ascertained once you submit the details of 30 acres on the khasra plan) then also 2.5 acres minimum green belt should be maintained by you. 7. A bank guarantee for a sum of two crore rupees shall be executed by you in the name of Director, Urban Estates, Haryana, valid for a period of four years from the date of agreement for release of land is executed. This bank guarantee and any additional bank guarantee executed by you under the land release agreement are liable to be forfeited in the event of failure to complete the construction in a period of 3 years from the date of obtaining change of land use permission or upon breach of terms and conditions of agreement for release of land at any time. 8. 8. You should undertake to provide additional bank guarantee of such like sum valid till the date two crore rupees bank guarantee indicated above in condition 6 is in force, over and above any other guarantees offered by you for releasing the land as and when the same would be intimated to you in the event of any enhancement in the acquisition rate awarded by any court of law for the land acquired in Sector 30, Gurgaon under Section 4 notification of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued on 30.1.1989. 9. You should provide 10% of the beds in the hospital proposed by you for the poor and 20% of the OPD and investigative services shall also be provided free in the hospital. 10. Preference shall be given to domicile of Haryana in the recruitment of Medical, Para-medical and other Class IV staff while filling the various posts in the facilities being developed by you depending upon the availability of requisite skills. 11. In the institute of Hotel Management, 20% of the trainees/students should be domiciles of Haryana. 12. for the released proportionate development charges are payable by you as and when the same are intimated. 13. You should withdraw all the court cases for enabling the department to release the land. 14. You should enter into an agreement with the Director, Urban Estates Department, Haryana, for fulflling all the other general conditions applicable for release of land including the above mentioned conditions. The proforma agreement and other relevant information would be provided to you by the Administrator, HUDA, Gurgaon, upon taking a formal decision for release of 30 acres of land. 15(a) Director General, Health Services or his nominee would monitor the adherence or otherwise of the conditions mentioned at condition No. 9 and 10. (b) Director, Tourism, Haryana, or his nominee would be the competent authority to monitor whether or not condition No. 11 is being ad hereto. P > 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. (b) Director, Tourism, Haryana, or his nominee would be the competent authority to monitor whether or not condition No. 11 is being ad hereto. P > 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. "6 IT IS ENVISAGED THAT WITH THE COMPLETION OF THIS PRESTIGIOUS PROJECT, CONSIDERABLE BENEFIT WOULD ACCRUE TO THE PEOPLE OF THE AREA AND THE STATE OF HARYANA WILL BE BENEFITED IN MANY WAYS AS THIS PROJECT IS OF PUBLIC UTILITY IN NATURE11 IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE OBJECT OF THE PROJECT IS TO PROVIDE EXCELLENT MEDICAL FACILITIES TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF HARYANA AND FREE MEDICAL FACILITIES TO THE NEEDY PEOPLE18I WITH ADVANCE MEDICAL FACILITIES AND ALSO FOR SETTING UP OF THE INSTITUTE FOR MANAGEMENT TRAINEES, WHICH IS HIGHLY FOR PUBLIC USE20 THAT MANIFEST INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE TO THE PETITIONERS WHO ARE BEING DEPRIVED OF THE VALUABLE LAND AND THEIR PROJECT FOR SETTING UP OF HOSPITAL AND MANAGEMENT TRAINING INSTITUTE ETC WHICH WERE TO PROVIDE BETTER SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE IS NOT BEING ALLOWED TO BE RAISEDANNEXURE - 9B1 I RESPECTFULLY PLACE BEFORE YOU THAT THE LAND WHICH WE HAD PURCHASED IS SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOSPITAL AND NOT FOR SALE TO MAKE ANY PROFITS, UNLIKE OTHER COLONIZERS, WHO ARE IN THE MARKET TO SELL THE HOUSES AND MAKE PROFITS2 THE HOSPITAL WILL NOT ONLY BE USED FOR THE UPPER CLASS OF PEOPLE BUT ALSO FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC LIVING IN HARYANA STATEIN HOSPITAL, WE ARE PROVIDING SPECIAL WARDS FOR THE NEEDY PATIENTS FREE OF COST" 18. "A THAT THE PROMISE SHALL NOT, EXCEPT WITH THE PREVIOUS PERMISSION OF THE PROMISOR SELL THE LAND/BUILDING OR PORTION THEREOF THE PROMISEE SHALL USE THE SAID LAND/BUILDING ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT HAS BEEN RELEASED AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS APPROVED BY THE ESTATE OFFICER AND NOT FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE WHATSOEVER NO OBNOXIOUS TRADE OR ACTIVITY SHALL BE CARRIED OUT IN ANY PORTION OF THE SAID LAND BUILDINGE THAT THE PROMISEE SHALL HAVE TO PAY ALL GENERAL AND LOCAL TAXES/RATES OR CESSES IMPOSED OR ASSESSED ON THE SAID LAND/BUILDING BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITYF THAT THE PROMISEE SHALL START AND COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAID LAND WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AS PER MEMO NO 4738 DATED 1991995 FROM DIRECTOR, URBAN ESTATE DEPARTMENT, HARYANAI THAT THE PROMISEE SHALL NOT CLAIM ANY AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION FOR 30 ACRES OUT OF 36 ACRES 7 KANAL 19 MARLAS OF LAND UNDER ACQUISITION BY THE GOVERNORK THAT IN THE EVENT OF FAILURE TO PAY THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES AND ANY OTHER AMOUNT DUE FROM THE PROMISEE, THE PROMISER SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO RECOVER THE SAME IN THE SAME MANNER AS IN THE CASE OF ARREARS OF LAND REVENUEL THAT THE PROMISEE SHALL ABIDE BY ALL THE PROVISIONS OF HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1977 AND RULES/REGULATIONS FRAMED THERE UNDER FROM TIME TO TIMEN RELEASED LAND SHALL NOT BE SOLD WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF CONCERNED DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT OF HARYANAO THAT THIRTY ACRES OF LAND RELEASED IS TO BE USED BY PROMISEE AS UNDER : 1176HTM P EXECUTIVE APARTMENTS AND STAFF HOUSES CONSTRUCTED ON THE RELEASED LAND INCLUDING THOSE ON THE 5 ACRES OF LAND SHOULD NOT BE SOLD AND SHOULD BE USED FOR HOUSING OFFICERS, OTHER PROFESSIONALS INCLUDING OFFICIALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE VARIOUS FACILITIES BEING DEVELOPEDQ THE PROMISEE SHALL OBTAIN THE PERMISSION FOR CHANGE OF LAND USE FROM THE DIRECTOR, TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, HARYANA, CHANDIGARH AND AN APPLICATION FOR THE SAME IN THE PRESCRIBED PROFORMA WITH THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND FEES SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY THE PROMISEE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF GETTING THE 30 ACRES OF LAND RELEASED FROM ACQUISITION IF OBTAINING CHANGE OF LAND USE PERMISSION FROM THE CONCERNED DEPARTMENT IS DELAYED FOR REASONS WHICH CAN BE ASCRIBED TO DEFICIENCIES ON PART OF PROMISEE BY MORE THAN THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RELEASING OF THIS LAND, THE TERMS OF RELEASE AS MENTIONED HEREIN AND AS WOULD BE INCORPORATED IN THE AGREEMENT ARE LIABLE TO BE CHANGED AT THE INSTANCE OF THIS DEPARTMENT AND THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN ESTATES, HARYANA WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO RESCIND THIS AGREEMENT FOR RELEASE OF LAND UNILATERALLY FURTHER SUCH PENALTIES IN THE NATURE OF FORFEITING THE WHOLE OR PART OF THE GUARANTEED SUM AS PER CONDITION NO R AND S ARE LIABLE TO BE LEVIED ON PROMISEER THE PROMISEE SHOULD COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAID FACILITIES VIZ HOSPITAL COMPLEX, INSTITUTE OF HOTEL MANAGEMENT AND ITS APPURTENANT AND ANCILLARY BUILDINGS AND EXECUTIVE APARTMENTS AND STAFF HOUSING ETC IN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SANCTION OF BUILDING PLANS WHICH ARE TO BE SUBMITTED BY PROMISEE WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF OBTAINING THE CHANGE OF LAND USE PERMISSIONS THE AREA UNDER GREEN BELT AS PER THE DEVELOPMENTAL PLAN OF GURGAON HAS TO BE MAINTAINED BY PROMISEE AND NO CONSTRUCTION WHATSOEVER WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE SAID GREEN BELT STATUTORY GREEN BELT AS PER THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN HAS TO BE MAINTAINED NO MATTER WHETHER THE AREA COVERED UNDER THAT IS MORE OR LESS THAN THE 25 ACRES OF GREEN BELT PROJECTED IN THE REPRESENTATION THAT IS TO SAY IN THE EVENT OF AREA UNDER STATUTORY GREEN BELT BEING LESS THAN 25 ACRES WHICH CAN ONLY BE ASCERTAINED ONCE THE PROMISEE SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF 30 ACRES ON THE KHASRA PLAN THEN ALSO 25 ACRES MINIMUM GREENBELT SHOULD BE MAINTAINED BY THE PROMISEET A BANK GUARANTEE FOR A SUM OF TWO CRORE RUPEES SHALL BE EXECUTED BY THE PROMISEE IN THE NAME OF DIRECTOR, URBAN ESTATES, HARYANA VALID FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF AGREEMENT FOR RELEASE OF LAND IS EXECUTED THIS BANK GUARANTEE AND ANY ADDITIONAL BANK GUARANTEE EXECUTED BY THE PROMISEE UNDER THE LAND RELEASE AGREEMENT ARE LIABLE TO BE FORFEITED IN THE EVENT OF FAILURE TO COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION IN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AS PER MEMO DATED 1991995 AT ANNEXURE A OR UPON BREACH OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT FOR RELEASE OF LAND AT ANY TIMEU THE PROMISEE UNDERTAKES TO PROVIDE PROPORTIONATE ADDITIONAL BANK GUARANTEE OF SUCH LIKE SUM VALID TILL THE DATE TWO CRORE RUPEES BANK GUARANTEE INDICATED ABOVE IN CONDITION NO T IS IN FORCE, OVER AND ABOVE ANY OTHER GUARANTEE OFFERED BY PROMISEE FOR RELEASING THE LAND AS AND WHEN THE SAME WOULD BE INTIMATED IN THE EVENT OF ANY ENHANCEMENT IN THE ACQUISITION RATE AWARDED BY ANY COURT OF LAW FOR THE LAND ACQUIRED IN SECTOR 39, GURGAON UNDER SECTION-4 NOTIFICATION OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 ISSUED ON 3011989V THE PROMISEE SHOULD PROVIDE 10% OF THE BEDS IN THE HOSPITAL GENERAL WARD PROPOSED BY PROMISEE FREE FOR THE POOR AND 20% OF THE OPD AND DOCTORS INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES SHALL ALSO BE PROVIDED FREE IN THE HOSPITALW PREFERENCE SHALL BE GIVEN TO DOMICILES OF HARYANA IN THE RECRUITMENT OF MEDICAL, PARA-MEDICAL AND OTHER CLASS-IV STAFF WHILE FILLING THE VARIOUS POSTS IN THE FACILITIES BEING DEVELOPED BY PROMISEE DEPENDING UPON THE AVAILABILITY OF REQUISITE SKILLSX IN THE INSTITUTE OF HOTEL MANAGEMENT, 20% OF THE TRAINEES/STUDENTS SHALL BE DOMICILE OF HARYANA" 19" > 3 4. "A WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE THE ACTION OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT IN FIRST PROCEEDING TO ACQUIRE A BIG CHUNK OF LAND, THEN RELEASING THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE PRIVATE COMPANY, THOUGH CONDITIONAL, THEN PERMITTING THE SALE OF SUCH LAND BY RESPONDENT NO 3 COMPANY IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENTS NO 4 AND 5 COMPANIES IN VIOLATION OF THE CONDITION OF RELEASE, IS NOT ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, MALA FIDE AND ULTRA VIRES THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT?B WHETHER THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND THE RESPONDENT COMPANIES IN FIRST GETTING AREA ACQUIRED AND THEN SEEKING RELEASE OF THE SAME IS NOT MALA FIDE AND ULTRA VIRES OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT?" 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. "6 IT IS ENVISAGED THAT WITH THE COMPLETION OF THIS PRESTIGIOUS PROJECT, CONSIDERABLE BENEFIT WOULD ACCRUE TO THE PEOPLE OF THE AREA AND THE STATE OF HARYANA WILL BE BENEFITED IN MANY WAYS AS THIS PROJECT IS OF PUBLIC UTILITY IN NATURE11 IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE OBJECT OF THE PROJECT IS TO PROVIDE EXCELLENT MEDICAL FACILITIES TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF HARYANA AND FREE MEDICAL FACILITIES TO THE NEEDY PEOPLE18I WITH ADVANCE MEDICAL FACILITIES AND ALSO FOR SETTING UP OF THE INSTITUTE FOR MANAGEMENT TRAINEES, WHICH IS HIGHLY FOR PUBLIC USE20 THAT MANIFEST INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE TO THE PETITIONERS WHO ARE BEING DEPRIVED OF THE VALUABLE LAND AND THEIR PROJECT FOR SETTING UP OF HOSPITAL AND MANAGEMENT TRAINING INSTITUTE ETC WHICH WERE TO PROVIDE BETTER SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE IS NOT BEING ALLOWED TO BE RAISEDANNEXURE - 9B1 I RESPECTFULLY PLACE BEFORE YOU THAT THE LAND WHICH WE HAD PURCHASED IS SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOSPITAL AND NOT FOR SALE TO MAKE ANY PROFITS, UNLIKE OTHER COLONIZERS, WHO ARE IN THE MARKET TO SELL THE HOUSES AND MAKE PROFITS2 THE HOSPITAL WILL NOT ONLY BE USED FOR THE UPPER CLASS OF PEOPLE BUT ALSO FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC LIVING IN HARYANA STATEIN HOSPITAL, WE ARE PROVIDING SPECIAL WARDS FOR THE NEEDY PATIENTS FREE OF COST" 18. "A THAT THE PROMISE SHALL NOT, EXCEPT WITH THE PREVIOUS PERMISSION OF THE PROMISOR SELL THE LAND/BUILDING OR PORTION THEREOF THE PROMISEE SHALL USE THE SAID LAND/BUILDING ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT HAS BEEN RELEASED AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS APPROVED BY THE ESTATE OFFICER AND NOT FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE WHATSOEVER NO OBNOXIOUS TRADE OR ACTIVITY SHALL BE CARRIED OUT IN ANY PORTION OF THE SAID LAND BUILDINGE THAT THE PROMISEE SHALL HAVE TO PAY ALL GENERAL AND LOCAL TAXES/RATES OR CESSES IMPOSED OR ASSESSED ON THE SAID LAND/BUILDING BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITYF THAT THE PROMISEE SHALL START AND COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAID LAND WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AS PER MEMO NO 4738 DATED 1991995 FROM DIRECTOR, URBAN ESTATE DEPARTMENT, HARYANAI THAT THE PROMISEE SHALL NOT CLAIM ANY AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION FOR 30 ACRES OUT OF 36 ACRES 7 KANAL 19 MARLAS OF LAND UNDER ACQUISITION BY THE GOVERNORK THAT IN THE EVENT OF FAILURE TO PAY THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES AND ANY OTHER AMOUNT DUE FROM THE PROMISEE, THE PROMISER SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO RECOVER THE SAME IN THE SAME MANNER AS IN THE CASE OF ARREARS OF LAND REVENUEL THAT THE PROMISEE SHALL ABIDE BY ALL THE PROVISIONS OF HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1977 AND RULES/REGULATIONS FRAMED THERE UNDER FROM TIME TO TIMEN RELEASED LAND SHALL NOT BE SOLD WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF CONCERNED DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT OF HARYANAO THAT THIRTY ACRES OF LAND RELEASED IS TO BE USED BY PROMISEE AS UNDER : 1176HTM P EXECUTIVE APARTMENTS AND STAFF HOUSES CONSTRUCTED ON THE RELEASED LAND INCLUDING THOSE ON THE 5 ACRES OF LAND SHOULD NOT BE SOLD AND SHOULD BE USED FOR HOUSING OFFICERS, OTHER PROFESSIONALS INCLUDING OFFICIALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE VARIOUS FACILITIES BEING DEVELOPEDQ THE PROMISEE SHALL OBTAIN THE PERMISSION FOR CHANGE OF LAND USE FROM THE DIRECTOR, TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, HARYANA, CHANDIGARH AND AN APPLICATION FOR THE SAME IN THE PRESCRIBED PROFORMA WITH THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND FEES SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY THE PROMISEE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF GETTING THE 30 ACRES OF LAND RELEASED FROM ACQUISITION IF OBTAINING CHANGE OF LAND USE PERMISSION FROM THE CONCERNED DEPARTMENT IS DELAYED FOR REASONS WHICH CAN BE ASCRIBED TO DEFICIENCIES ON PART OF PROMISEE BY MORE THAN THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RELEASING OF THIS LAND, THE TERMS OF RELEASE AS MENTIONED HEREIN AND AS WOULD BE INCORPORATED IN THE AGREEMENT ARE LIABLE TO BE CHANGED AT THE INSTANCE OF THIS DEPARTMENT AND THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN ESTATES, HARYANA WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO RESCIND THIS AGREEMENT FOR RELEASE OF LAND UNILATERALLY FURTHER SUCH PENALTIES IN THE NATURE OF FORFEITING THE WHOLE OR PART OF THE GUARANTEED SUM AS PER CONDITION NO R AND S ARE LIABLE TO BE LEVIED ON PROMISEER THE PROMISEE SHOULD COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAID FACILITIES VIZ HOSPITAL COMPLEX, INSTITUTE OF HOTEL MANAGEMENT AND ITS APPURTENANT AND ANCILLARY BUILDINGS AND EXECUTIVE APARTMENTS AND STAFF HOUSING ETC IN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SANCTION OF BUILDING PLANS WHICH ARE TO BE SUBMITTED BY PROMISEE WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF OBTAINING THE CHANGE OF LAND USE PERMISSIONS THE AREA UNDER GREEN BELT AS PER THE DEVELOPMENTAL PLAN OF GURGAON HAS TO BE MAINTAINED BY PROMISEE AND NO CONSTRUCTION WHATSOEVER WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE SAID GREEN BELT STATUTORY GREEN BELT AS PER THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN HAS TO BE MAINTAINED NO MATTER WHETHER THE AREA COVERED UNDER THAT IS MORE OR LESS THAN THE 25 ACRES OF GREEN BELT PROJECTED IN THE REPRESENTATION THAT IS TO SAY IN THE EVENT OF AREA UNDER STATUTORY GREEN BELT BEING LESS THAN 25 ACRES WHICH CAN ONLY BE ASCERTAINED ONCE THE PROMISEE SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF 30 ACRES ON THE KHASRA PLAN THEN ALSO 25 ACRES MINIMUM GREENBELT SHOULD BE MAINTAINED BY THE PROMISEET A BANK GUARANTEE FOR A SUM OF TWO CRORE RUPEES SHALL BE EXECUTED BY THE PROMISEE IN THE NAME OF DIRECTOR, URBAN ESTATES, HARYANA VALID FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF AGREEMENT FOR RELEASE OF LAND IS EXECUTED THIS BANK GUARANTEE AND ANY ADDITIONAL BANK GUARANTEE EXECUTED BY THE PROMISEE UNDER THE LAND RELEASE AGREEMENT ARE LIABLE TO BE FORFEITED IN THE EVENT OF FAILURE TO COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION IN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AS PER MEMO DATED 1991995 AT ANNEXURE A OR UPON BREACH OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT FOR RELEASE OF LAND AT ANY TIMEU THE PROMISEE UNDERTAKES TO PROVIDE PROPORTIONATE ADDITIONAL BANK GUARANTEE OF SUCH LIKE SUM VALID TILL THE DATE TWO CRORE RUPEES BANK GUARANTEE INDICATED ABOVE IN CONDITION NO T IS IN FORCE, OVER AND ABOVE ANY OTHER GUARANTEE OFFERED BY PROMISEE FOR RELEASING THE LAND AS AND WHEN THE SAME WOULD BE INTIMATED IN THE EVENT OF ANY ENHANCEMENT IN THE ACQUISITION RATE AWARDED BY ANY COURT OF LAW FOR THE LAND ACQUIRED IN SECTOR 39, GURGAON UNDER SECTION-4 NOTIFICATION OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 ISSUED ON 3011989V THE PROMISEE SHOULD PROVIDE 10% OF THE BEDS IN THE HOSPITAL GENERAL WARD PROPOSED BY PROMISEE FREE FOR THE POOR AND 20% OF THE OPD AND DOCTORS INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES SHALL ALSO BE PROVIDED FREE IN THE HOSPITALW PREFERENCE SHALL BE GIVEN TO DOMICILES OF HARYANA IN THE RECRUITMENT OF MEDICAL, PARA-MEDICAL AND OTHER CLASS-IV STAFF WHILE FILLING THE VARIOUS POSTS IN THE FACILITIES BEING DEVELOPED BY PROMISEE DEPENDING UPON THE AVAILABILITY OF REQUISITE SKILLSX IN THE INSTITUTE OF HOTEL MANAGEMENT, 20% OF THE TRAINEES/STUDENTS SHALL BE DOMICILE OF HARYANA" 19 Thus, according to the aforesaid conditions, the land was released for a specific purpose of setting up a hospital project in 30 acres of land with a further condition that the released land shall not be sold without the approval of the Government of Haryana and shall be used only for the facilities proposed to be set up and that the if the promisee commits any breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement, then, notwithstanding waiver of any previous clause or right, promisor may revoke the release of land/building allowed to him. 20. It may also be relevant to refer to the order dated 9.2.2000 passed by a Lok Adalat of this Court which reads as follows :- "CWP No. 3808 of 1990 Shri Jitender Sibal , Senior Advocate with Shri Kumar Sethi , Advocate for the petitioners Shri Rajneesh Dhanda , AAG, Haryana for the respondents. The matter came up before us on 23.12.1999 when the application made by the petitioners based on a compromise dated 13.10.1997 between the petitioners and the State of Haryana for consideration as the petitioners sought withdrawal of the petitions on that basis. A copy of the same was supplied to the Ld. Assistant Advocate General, Haryana to have the instructions from the authorities concerned. Notice was also sent to the Director, Urban Estates-cum-Chief Administrator, Haryana, Urban Estate Authority, Panchkula for today the service is complete. The compromise dated 13.10.1997 has not been disputed. The writ petition is accordingly disposed off as withdrawn on its basis. Sd /- Reader Lok Adalat Sd /- Punjab and Haryana High Court Sd /- (D.V. Sehgal ) Chandigarh President 11.2.2000 Sd /- (S.S. Goindi ) February 9, 2000 Member" 21. Thus, even the civil writ petition No. 3808 of 1990 was allowed to be withdrawn on the basis of the aforesaid agreement. There was also a condition that the construction of the hospital and other facilities shall be completed within a period of three years from the date of sanction of building plans to be submitted by respondent No. 3 within one month from the date of obtaining the change of land use permission and in case of failure to complete the construction as aforesaid, a Bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 2 crores shall be forfeited. 22. It may also be relevant to note that in view of the release of the land in favour of respondent No. 3 in fact the whole of the land measuring 171 acres ( except 8.64 acres for which an award was pronounced) was released from acquisition but respondent No. 2 has failed to make any averment in the written statement regarding as to under what circumstances, the land under acquisition was released. On the other hand, it has been established on record that in fact 33 writ petitions were filed before this Court challenging the aforesaid acquisition and because of the agreement dated 13.10.1997, the Government had to release the other land also. 23. The relevant part of judgment dated 11.1.2010 passed in CWP No. 3494 of 1990 and other connected matters read as follows :- "This order shall dispose of a bunch of 33 petitions* as common questions of law and facts are involved. However, the facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 3494 of 1990. The challenge in these petitions is to the notification dated 30.1.1989 (Annexure P-2), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity the Act). The declaration under Section 6 of the Act (Annexure P-3) acquiring the land was made on 25.1.1990. The public purpose of acquiring the land declared in the aforesaid notifications was for development and utilisation of land for commercial area in Sector 30 of village Silokhera and Sukhrali, District Gurgaon. The averments made in the petitions are that the land belonging to the influential persons had either not been acquired or it had later been released. In para 6 of this petition such like allegations have been made. It has also been averred that huge area has been released from acquisition which would be evident from the perusal of para 8. The writ petitions were admitted on 13.11.1990. The interim directions were issued staying the dispossession and further proceedings against the petition. The matter had been contested and respondents have filed their separate replies. Mr. R.M. Singh and Mr. Puneet Bali, learned counsel for the petitioners have, at the outset, brought to the notice of this Court that the aforesaid notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were also the subject matter of challenge in Civil Writ Petition No. 3059 of 1990 on similar grounds. The said writ petition was also decided by a learned Single Judge vide order dated 23.12.2006, and the notification under Section 6 of the Act was quashed. In the appeal i.e. LPA No. 179 of 2008 filed by the respondent- State, the view taken by the learned Single Judge was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed on 24.9.2008. The said writ petition was also decided by a learned Single Judge vide order dated 23.12.2006, and the notification under Section 6 of the Act was quashed. In the appeal i.e. LPA No. 179 of 2008 filed by the respondent- State, the view taken by the learned Single Judge was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed on 24.9.2008. The Letters Patent Bench has noticed the subsequent events which had taken place after the filing of the petition, which are to the effect that the land belonging to many builders covered by the aforesaid acquisition proceedings, had been released which include M/s East India Hotels Ltd., Gurgaon, M/s DLF Universal Limited and S/Sh. Gopal Ram @ Gopi, Jai Bhagwan, Ram Singh, Sri Niwas, Kamal Kumar, Shyam Lata, Hari Chand and Smt. Nirmal Kanta wife of Sh. Daya Nand. Reference has also been made to the instances of releasing acquired land measuring 30 acres vide letter dated 19.9.1995. The Letter Patent Bench has also taken notice of the fact that a collaboration agreement was entered into by various builders with the owners of the land who were later on granted licence by the Town and Country Planning Department for establishing and developing the land for various purposes, like Cyber Park Colony, Commercial Colony, Group Housing Society etc. On the basis of the aforesaid instances, the Division Bench has concluded that the land had been released in favour of several persons but the same was to be developed privately by the builders and that A class residential construction existed which deserved to be exempted from acquisition. An inference of discrimination was found to be patent in ignoring to consider the case of the petitioners while selectively releasing the land of other similarly situated persons. It is well settled that power of acquisition of land cannot be used for profiteering and in that regard reliance is placed on Bhagat Singh v. State of Haryana, 1988(2) R.R.R. 530 : (1988)4 SCC 534 and BEML Employees House Building Cooperative Society Limited v. State of Karnataka and others, 2004(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 344 : AIR 2004 (SC) 5054. After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the view that the bunch of these petitions is squarely covered by the opinion expressed by this Court in its judgment dated 24.9.2008 rendered in LPA No. 179 of 2008. After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the view that the bunch of these petitions is squarely covered by the opinion expressed by this Court in its judgment dated 24.9.2008 rendered in LPA No. 179 of 2008. Accordingly, the notification dated 25.1.1990 issued under Section 6 of the Act stands quashed with liberty in the same terms as has been granted by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 3059 of 1990. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own costs." 24. In BEML Employees House Building Cooperative Society Limited v. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 2004 SC 5054, the Honble Supreme Court observed that the discretion may be wide but was not wild. Exercise of statutory discretion has to be on reasonable grounds. Arbitrariness was an anathema to the rule of law. 25. Following the aforesaid judgment, this Court in LPA No. 179 of 2008 decided on 24.9.2008 found that the process of acquisition was used to enable the colonisers to take over the private land for their purpose instead of public purpose and the State became party to that by releasing such land in favour of colonizers who were not even owners at the time of acquisition and thus, the finding was recorded that the policy of exemption was arbitrarily applied only to give benefit to the private colonizers. 26. In view of the finding recorded above, we do not find any merit in the contention that there is absolute power of the State or that exercise of discretion by the State cannot be interfered with in exercise of its power of judicial review, Court can certainly see that the executive acts lawfully, bona fide and within the limits of its power. If there is an abuse or misuse of power, jurisdiction of this Court can certainly be invoked. Rule of law has to prevail as it the basic requirement of Article 14 that the State acts fairly, reasonably and in good faith. 27. If there is an abuse or misuse of power, jurisdiction of this Court can certainly be invoked. Rule of law has to prevail as it the basic requirement of Article 14 that the State acts fairly, reasonably and in good faith. 27. It may also be seen that respondent-DLF has entered into a memorandum of understanding as early as on 21.2.2005 with respondent No. 3 to purchase the land in question, the date on which even the permission to sell the land by respondent No. 3 was not applied as respondent No. 3 made a request to the Government for permission to sell the land in question to M/s DLF Limited vide its letter dated 31.3.2005/4.4.2005. Further the DLF-respondent No. 5 applied for setting up a Special Economic Zone on the land in question on 14.10.2005 and in principle approval to set up the aforesaid SEZ was granted to the aforesaid respondents by the State of Haryana even prior to the permission to sell which was granted on 28.4.2006 and execution of the sale deeds in their favour on 22.8.2006 and 29.8.2006. 28. Thus, it may be noticed that on one hand, the Government was proceeding with the permission to set up a SEZ upon the land in favour of respondents No. 4 and 5 which was granted vide letter dated 28.10.2005 and on the other hand, permission to sell land in question was granted to respondent No. 3 vide its memo No. 4273 dated 28.4.2006 on the basis of a request of respondent No. 3 made on 4.4.2005. While granting permission, the respondent-State completely ignored the agreement dated 13.10.1997 executed by respondent No. 3. 29. The aforesaid facts alone are enough to establish the nexus of M/s DLF Limited with the Government to grab the property in question. In fact the subsequent facts of granting necessary approvals for setting up of a SEZ etc. was an attempt to cover the whole mala fide action of respondent No. 2 and the facts noticed above, indicates only to one conclusion i.e. there was a nexus between the Government and respondents No. 4 and 5 to grab the land in question and everything was facilitated to give the same a legal cover. 30. was an attempt to cover the whole mala fide action of respondent No. 2 and the facts noticed above, indicates only to one conclusion i.e. there was a nexus between the Government and respondents No. 4 and 5 to grab the land in question and everything was facilitated to give the same a legal cover. 30. At this stage, we are constrained to observe that in the matter of acquisition, State of Haryana has already earned severe strictures from Honble the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Ram v. State of Haryana, 2010(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 181 : 2010(2) R.A.J. 1 : (2010)3 SCC 621, Honble the Supreme Court has severally indicted the respondent State. In paras 26, 40 and 43 of the judgment, following observations have been made : "26. ....The policy articulated in the letter dated 26.6.1991, thus,hardly helps the respondents. Rather it is seen that neither the aforesaid policy nor any other policy has been followed by the State Government while releasing land of various landowners whose lands have been acquired in the same acquisition proceedings. As a matter of fact, the only policy that seems to have been followed is: "you show me the face and Ill show you the rule". "40. It is true that any action or order contrary to law does not confer any right upon any person for similar treatment. It is equally true that a landowner whose land has been acquired for public purpose by following the prescribed procedure cannot claim as a matter of right for release of his/her land from acquisition but where the State Government exercises its power under Section 48 of the Act for withdrawal from acquisition in respect of a particular land, the landowners who are similarly situated have right of similar treatment by the State Government. Equality of citizens rights is one of the fundamental pillars on 28 CWP No. 1620 of 2010 which edifice of rule of law rests. All actions of the State have to be fair and for legitimate reasons." "43. It is unfair on the part of the State Government in not considering representations of the appellants by applying the same standards which were applied to other landowners while withdrawing from acquisition of their land under the same acquisition proceedings. All actions of the State have to be fair and for legitimate reasons." "43. It is unfair on the part of the State Government in not considering representations of the appellants by applying the same standards which were applied to other landowners while withdrawing from acquisition of their land under the same acquisition proceedings. If this Court does not correct the wrong action of the State Government, it may leave citizens with the belief that what counts for the citizens is right contacts with right persons in the State Government and that judicial proceedings are not efficacious. The action of State Government in treating the present appellants differently although they are situated similar to the landowners whose lands have been released can not be countenanced and has to be declared bad in law." (emphasis added) 31. While recognizing the power of judicial review of the High Court, a Nine- Judge Bench of Honble the Supreme Court in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007)2 SCC 1 observed in paras 129 and 130 of the judgment, which read thus : "129. Equality, rule of law, judicial review and separation of powers form parts of the basic structure of the Constitution. Each of these concepts are intimately connected. There can be no rule of law, if there is no equality before the law. These would be meaningless if the violation was not subject to the judicial review. All these would be redundant if the legislative, executive and judicial powers are vested in one organ. Therefore, the duty to decide whether the limits have been transgressed has been placed on the judiciary. 130. Realising that it is necessary to secure the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights, power for such enforcement has been vested by the Constitution in the Supreme Court and the High Courts. Judicial Review is an essential feature of the Constitution. It gives practical content to the objectives of the Constitution embodied in Part III and other parts of the Constitution. It may be noted that the mere fact that equality which is a part of the basic structure can be excluded for a limited purpose, to protect certain kinds of laws, does not prevent it from being part of the basic structure. It may be noted that the mere fact that equality which is a part of the basic structure can be excluded for a limited purpose, to protect certain kinds of laws, does not prevent it from being part of the basic structure. Therefore, it follows that in considering whether any particular feature of the Constitution is part of the basic structure - rule of law, separation of power - the fact that limited exceptions are made for limited purposes, to protect certain kind of laws, does not mean that it is not part of the basic structure." 32. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, 1994(1) R.R.R. 253 : (1994)1 SCC 1, held as under : "It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree - by the first court or by the highest court - has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings." 33. As found in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment that the power of compulsory acquisition has been used fraudulently, all objections concerning delay in challenging acquisition and locus standi are not sustainable as it is well settled that all actions taken fraudulently are vitiated in law. The defence taken by the State of Haryana that the land in question was released in favour of respondent No. 3 in accordance with law and further necessary permission was granted to respondent No. 3 for selling the land to respondents No. 4 and 5 after adopting due procedure is not sufficient to oust the present petitioner. In the written statement or in the arguments, the State has failed to justify its action of acquiring a vast track of land for development purposes and thereafter, virtually releasing the whole of the land. In fact from the judicial record, it has been established that due to the release of the land in question, the remaining acquired land had also to be released as noticed in a judgment dated 23.12.2006 passed in CWP No. 3059 of 1990. In fact from the judicial record, it has been established that due to the release of the land in question, the remaining acquired land had also to be released as noticed in a judgment dated 23.12.2006 passed in CWP No. 3059 of 1990. Even Letters Patent Appeal No. 179 of 2008 filed against the judgment dated 23.12.2006 passed in CWP No. 3059 of 1990 was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 24.9.2008. Not only this, CWP No. 3494 of 1990 along with 32 other writ petitions was also allowed by this Court in terms of the judgment passed in LPA No. 179 of 2008 as aforesaid. Thus, the power of acquisition has been used for a collateral purpose of extending benefit to respondents No. 3 to 5 as against a public purpose. 34. The oblique motive of acquisition is completely exposed by the stand taken by the respondent-State. It is not understandable as to why the State of Haryana is showering favour of respondents No. 4 and 5. In any case, it has been proved that the power of acquisition has been used for a colourable purpose on the pretext of serving a public purpose. Even this Court in CWP No. 1620 of 2010 has found that the land in question in that case was acquired on the pretext of a public purpose with the real object of handing it over to DLF-respondent. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court also observed that the State and its officers are tilted in showering favour on the DLF i.e. Respondents No. 4 and 5. 35. In 2010(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 412 : CWP No. 5878 of 2003 decided on 8.12.2009 titled as Amita Banta and another v. State of Haryana and others, this Court has observed that power of acquisition cannot be enlarged to achieve a purpose other than notified public purpose by recourse to policy making under Section 48. It was further observed in this case that effect of withdrawal from acquisition is to confer immense advantage to person in whose favour such power is exercised which is not permissible except for unforeseen hardships to State or individual and not for profit to individual or even to the State. 36. It was further observed in this case that effect of withdrawal from acquisition is to confer immense advantage to person in whose favour such power is exercised which is not permissible except for unforeseen hardships to State or individual and not for profit to individual or even to the State. 36. In Amita Bantas case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that the power to release the acquired land under Section 148 is not unlimited, uncanalised and unguided. The said power having regard to the scheme of the Act, has to be confined to exceptional situations. Otherwise the same will defeat the object and purpose of the Act to acquire land strictly for public purpose and not otherwise. 37. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court also found that the action of the State in first initiating acquisition proceedings without public purpose and thereafter, in unauthorisedly withdrawing from acquisition selectively on an irrelevant ground of grant of licence under the 1975 Act, was not legally permissible. While summing up in the judgment, the Court also held that wherever there is a wrong, there is a remedy and the Court is possessed of different options for moulding relief. Thus, the Court cannot ignore the releases/wrongs which has become final and the persons have been benefited immensely on accounts of such wrongs by retaining those benefits illegally and this may have to be undone. To prevent illegal benefit being retained, the Court may quash release or withdrawal from acquisition if the same is held to be vitiated by fraud. The Court may require the State to recall such release and also to ascertain whether release was for any extraneous consideration and how wrongful gain or wrongful loss can be readjusted. Released land may be restored to the State or sold in public auction. The State itself may recall its illegal actions. It may not be possible to lay down any rigid rule as to how relief can be moulded by Court in an individual fact situation. If order of release is to be cancelled, it may be necessary to hear the affected party by the Court or the authority passing the order. 38. In view of the findings recorded above, the impugned action of the State cannot be upheld. If order of release is to be cancelled, it may be necessary to hear the affected party by the Court or the authority passing the order. 38. In view of the findings recorded above, the impugned action of the State cannot be upheld. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and notifications Annexures P-3 and P-4 releasing the land in favour of respondent No. 3 are set aside and it is further held that permission of sale which was granted on 28.4.2006 in favour of respondent No. 3 and execution of sale deeds in favour of respondents No. 4 and 5 vide sale deeds Annexures P-5 and P-6 were illegal. 39. At this stage, it may also be noticed that notification under Section 4 of the Act, for acquiring the land in question was issued on 30.1.1989 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 25.1.1990. However, respondent No. 3 challenged the aforesaid acquisition proceedings by filing CWP No. 3808 of 1990 and vide order dated 23.3.1990, his dispossession was stayed. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 9.2.2000 passed by a Lok Adalat of this Court on the basis of a compromise dated 13.10.1997 reached between respondent No. 3 and the State of Haryana and the writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn and in the meantime, land was released in favour of respondent No. 3 in a fraudulent manner as noticed in the foregoing paragraphs of the judgment. Since the whole transaction has been found to be the result of fraudulent exercise of power, all the actions are deemed to be vitiated in law. 40. Accordingly, we hold and direct that the proceedings of acquisition of land in question as per the notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act issued on 30.1.1989 and 25.1.1990 respectively shall be revived and the respondent-Authorities shall complete the acquisition proceedings from that stage. The result would be that the respondent-State shall pass an award acquiring the land in dispute. After completing the acquisition proceedings, the land be put to use by the respondent-State for the same public purpose for which it was released from acquisition in favour of respondent No. 3. The construction, if any, raised by the respondents on the land in dispute, shall be removed by the respondents within a reasonable time, say within six months. After completing the acquisition proceedings, the land be put to use by the respondent-State for the same public purpose for which it was released from acquisition in favour of respondent No. 3. The construction, if any, raised by the respondents on the land in dispute, shall be removed by the respondents within a reasonable time, say within six months. In case of their failure, the same shall be demolished by the State of Haryana at the expenses of respondents No. 3 to 5. Respondents No. 3 to 5 are at liberty to seek their remedy against each other for recovery of the sale price/damages on account of sale/purchase of land in question between themselves. 41. The respondent State is directed to take further action in the matter in accordance with law. 42. Thus, this writ petition is allowed with costs which is quantified at Rs. 2,00,000/- which shall be borne by the respondent-State and respondents No. 3 to 5 equally. Amount of costs be paid to the Legal Services Committee of the High Court within one month, failing which Secretary of the Committee shall start recovery proceedings against the aforesaid respondents. Petition allowed.