Jaswant Rai vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Satyen Vaidya, J

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:-

"That the respondents No.1 to 4 may kindly be directed to cancel sanction letter dated 29.09.2010 along with mutation No.389 attested on 30.09.2010, whereby exchange of land has been granted in favour of respondent No.5 i.e. land measuring 1.5 bighas comprised in Khasra No.378/307/241/1/2/1 situated in Village Juddi Khurd, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan, H.P. and the said land may kindly be ordered to be vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh and be ordered to be used in future for the public purpose only".

Respondent No.5 was having land comprised in Khasra No.306/241/1 at Village Juddi Khurd, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan, which was required by Department of Industries, Himachal Pradesh for construction of a road. On negotiations, respondent No.5 agreed to transfer land comprised in Khasra No.306/241/1 to the extent of 1.5 bighas, in favour of department of Industries, Himachal Pradesh, in lieu of land comprised in Khasra No.378/307/241/1/2/1 measuring 1.5 bighas in the same Village proposed to be transferred by the said department in his favour.

Deputy Director of Industries, Single Window Clearance Agency, Baddi District Solan, on 09.09.2009 communicated a proposal for transfer of above noted pieces of land by way of exchange, to the Commissioner of Industries Himachal Pradesh. On 3rd February, 2010, the Commissioner Industries Himachal Pradesh forwarded the said proposal to Deputy Commissioner, Solan for grant of no objection in that behalf. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Solan vide order dated 29th September, 2010 approved transfer of land comprised in Khasra No.307/241/1/2/1 measuring 1.5 bighas in Village Juddi Khurd, Tehsil Baddi, in favour of Department of Industries subject however to the condition that the transfer would abide by the result of SLP No.1077/2006 pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was further specified that in case the Department of Industries failed to utilize the land for the purpose, it was being transferred, the same shall revert back to the Department of Revenue free from all encumbrances.

The exchange was accordingly affected. Mutation of above noted exchange was attested on 06.09.2012.

Petitioner has taken exception to transfer of land comprised in Khasra No.378/307/241/1/2/1 in Village Juddi Khurd, Tehsil Baddi in favour of respondent No.5 on the following grounds:

(i) The transfer of government land in favour of respondent No.5 is in violation of law;

(ii) Respondent No.5 is an influential person and he got the land transferred in his favour by use of his clout;

(iii) The land could not be transferred in favour of respondent No.5 as it was part of a large chunk of land earmarked for development of industrial hub;

(iv) The land transferred in favour of respondent No.5 abuts the land owned by petitioner and by such transfer the front opening of his land has been obstructed/reduced;

(v) The land comprised in Khasra No.306/241/1 was allotted to predecessor - in-interest of respondent No.5 under Nautor Scheme, therefore, the respondent No.5 was not entitled to transfer it in favour of Department of Industries;

(vi) The land transferred in favour of respondent No.5 was not utilized for prescribed purpose within stipulated period of two years.

(vii) As per petitioner, other persons including one Smt. Narender Kaur, had also applied for exchange of their lands with Department of Industries, but the same was not allowed and thus such persons were discriminated vis-à-vis respondent No.5.

(viii) Petitioner being adjoining owner had first right to be offered the land transferred in favour of respondent No.5 and;

(ix) Lastly, petitioner alleged that respondent No.5 had started construction on the land without proper sanction.

Respondents No.1 and 2 in their reply have contested the stand of petitioner. It is stated on behalf of said respondents that the land of respondent No.5 in Khasra No.306/241/1 was urgently required for completion of road being constructed by Department of Industries to connect NH 21A with the Baddi-Barotiwala road with a view to reduce the traffic on the main roads. According to respondents No.1 and 2, the negotiation between the parties for exchange of land was necessitated at the stage when the work of completion of above -mentioned patch of road was stranded for want of permission from respondent No.5 to use his land. The mutation of exchange was attested within two years from the date of approval. It has also been averred that by such exchange the Department of Industries saved more than about Rs.50,000,00/- (Fifty Lakhs), besides the time which would have been consumed for completion of acquisition proceedings. It has been stated that the exchange of land made with respondent No.5 for not for any extraneous consideration. The location of exchanged land is stated to be on a link road and not on the highway. Specific stand of respondents No.1 and 2 is that except for the land of respondent No.5, no other land was either required or exchanged and the case of Smt. Narender Kaur, was not for exchange of land.

Respondent No.4, Deputy Commissioner, Solan filed his separate reply. The stand taken by said respondent is identical to the stand taken by respondents No.1 and 2. In addition, it has been submitted that the land given to respondent No.5 in exchange does not abut any land of the petitioner and is surrounded by land belonging to Government of Himachal Pradesh. It has also been clarified that the land comprised in Khasra No.306/241/1 was allotted to predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.5 in the year 1975 and there was no subsisting embargo or impediment to transfer said land.

Respondent No.5 has also filed his separate reply. He has challenged the existence of locus standi and cause of action in favour of petitioner to file this petition. According to respondent No.5, the entire transaction of exchange was bona fide. He was neither influential nor any influence as alleged was used in the deal in question. Respondent No.5 has objected to the prayer in the petition being barred by delay and latches. On merits, the defence of respondent No.5 is akin to that of respondents No.1, 2 & 4.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records made available to us.

The exchange of land between Respondent No.5 and department of Industries was made in the year 2010. The mutation of exchange was attested on 06.09.2012. There is no explanation as to why petitioner remained silent till 18th July, 2019, when he, for the first time, approached this Court by way of instant petition. In our considered view, the petition clearly suffers from delay and laches.

Petitioner has raised all sorts of objections, as noted above, but without any attempt to substantiate even a single allegation.

It has not been proved that the transaction of exchange was influenced by the alleged status of respondent No.5. Petitioner has also failed to bring on record any material to justify or support his allegation with respect to land in question having been earmarked for Industrial hub. It has also been falsified that petitioner owned land adjacent to the land given to respondent No.5 in exchange, which even makes alleged cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner questionable. The allegation with respect to alleged discrimination by official respondents meted to Smt. Narender Kaur and others has also not been substantiated on record.

On the other hand, it has been found from the material on record that the transaction with respect to exchange of lands between respondent No.5 and Department of Industries, Himachal Pradesh was bona fide in the given circumstances. There is nothing on record to infer that the land given to respondent No.5 in exchange was higher in value than the land of said respondent taken in exchange by Department of Industries, Himachal Pradesh. No extraneous reasons for the impugned transaction are either visible or proved. The documents produced by parties, rather, reveal that no other person including Smt. Narender Kaur had ever applied for exchange of land with Department of Industries, in similar circumstances. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Solan had approved the transfer of land in favour of Department of Industries on the condition that the same would be utilized for the prescribed purpose within two years. The prescribed purpose was the exchange of lands, which was accomplished within stipulated period.

Above all, the contention of petitioner about his first right to be considered for transfer of Government land given in exchange to respondent No.5, leaves no manner of doubt about his motive in filing the petition. Thus, the petitioner clearly appears to have used the process of law for his vested reasons.

In light of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, with no orders as to costs.