Summary
A landowner's claim to have his acquired land released on the ground of discrimination and a running factory failed because he held no Change of Land Use certificate, a statutory prerequisite under the 1963 Act, and because the State had already spent heavily on sector development; the Court nevertheless rejected the State's pleas of delay and res judicata and, under Article 142 and on the special facts of continued physical possession, directed that compensation be computed under the 2013 Act as on its commencement date.
Issues
- Whether the appellant, claiming a factory in operation since 1970, was entitled to release of his land from acquisition under the State's policies dated 26.06.1991 and 26.10.2007 despite not holding a Change of Land Use (CLU) certificate.
- Whether the appellant was discriminated against vis-a-vis other landowners of the same village whose lands were released from the same acquisition.
- Whether the writ petition was barred by delay and laches or by res judicata in view of the two earlier writ petitions.
- Whether any relief was warranted having regard to the expenditure already incurred by the State on development of the acquired sectors and the appellant's continued physical possession.
Provisions considered
- Sections 4, 5-A, 6, 9 and 48(1), Land Acquisition Act, 1894The land was acquired under notifications under Sections 4 (09.11.1992) and 6 (06.11.1993) with award on 05.11.1995. The State's policies allowed release under Section 48(1) only where objections under Section 5-A had been filed and the request was made within one year of the award; the State contended the appellant filed no Section 5-A objection and had claimed compensation in response to the Section 9 notice without seeking release. (¶¶ 2.1, 4, 5, 6)
- Section 4(1)(a), Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963The area around Sonipat having been declared a controlled area by notification dated 23.09.1964, any development there required a CLU; the appellant produced no CLU for himself or his predecessor, so the factory could not be treated as valid so as to bring his case within the release policies. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaInvoked, on the peculiar facts that the appellant remained in physical possession with a working factory and the State had not satisfactorily controverted this, to direct that compensation be calculated under the 2013 Act as on the date of its commencement, expressly not as a precedent. (¶ 13)
- Compensation provisions as on commencement, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Compensation payable to the appellant was directed to be computed under the 2013 Act as on the date of its commencement, in exercise of Article 142 powers. (¶ 13)
Held
- Where land lies in a controlled area notified under Section 4(1)(a) of the 1963 Act, a Change of Land Use certificate is a statutory prerequisite for a valid factory or commercial development. In the absence of a CLU, a factory running on the land cannot be validated so as to bring the owner's case within the State's release policies of 26.06.1991 or 26.10.2007, and release of the land is not permissible. The State's specific plea that no CLU existed stood uncontroverted by any rejoinder. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- The plea of discrimination fails where the lands said to have been released stand on a different footing: one owner had applied for and been granted a CLU before the Section 4 notification and his release order preceded the award; another's land in the road/green belt was not released; and the remaining released lands were not part of the same notification. The appellant, without a valid CLU, was not similarly situated. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- Release of the subject land would disturb the planning of the whole acquired area, the State having spent Rs. 2661.88 lakhs on sector roads, water supply, sewerage and drainage, earmarked land for public utilities and allotted commercial plots, and the land abutting an institutional plot, an 18-metre road and a 30-metre green belt. (¶ 11)
- The request for release did not suffer from delay and laches, since the State itself was considering release and change of land use requests as late as 2020-21 while the appellant had pursued his case from 2007-08. Nor was it barred by res judicata: the first writ petition did not seek release, the second was withdrawn because the representation was pending, and the present petition challenged the subsequent rejection, so the merits had never been decided by the High Court. (¶ 12)
- Though release on the ground of discrimination was refused, since the appellant claimed continuous physical possession with a factory in operation and the department had not satisfactorily controverted this, the Court in exercise of its power under Article 142 directed that compensation be calculated under the 2013 Act as on the date of its commencement, making clear that the order rests on the peculiar facts and is not a precedent. (¶ 13)
Result
Appeal disposed of; prayer for release of land rejected; under Article 142 compensation to be calculated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as on the date of its commencement, not to be treated as a precedent; no order as to costs.