National Packing Industries vs State of Haryana

Lisa Gill, J.—This order shall dispose of two Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2304 of 2014 (M/s. National Packing Industries versus State of Haryana and others) and 2327 of 2014 (Suresh Garg and another versus State of Haryana and others). While CWP No. 2304 of 2014 has been filed by M/s. National Packing Industries through its partner (Suresh Garg), CWP No. 2327 of 2014 has been filed by the partner of M/s. Naresh Packing Industries Suresh Garg in his individual capacity alongwith Vinita Garg. The relief claimed in both the writ petitions is identical.

The petitioner is in the third round of litigation laying challenge to the notifications dated 01.10.1973 and 01.10.1976 issued under Sections 4 and 6, respectively, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ''the Act'').

The first writ petition challenging the validity of the acquisition was dismissed by this court on 18.04.2007 in Civil Writ Petition No. 9406 of 1987 (Annexure P-4). LPA No. 242 of 2007 filed against the same was also dismissed vide order dated 21.07.2009 (Annexure P-5). The SLP No. 7933 of 2010 filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.03.2010.

The petitioner yet again filed C.W.P. No. 24093 of 2013 which was dismissed by this court on 31.10.2013 while observing as under:-

" The acquisition of the subject property including house of the proprietor of the petitioner-Industry has already been upheld by this court while dismissing his Writ Petition No. 9406 of 1987 vide order dated 18.04.2007 as well as LPA No. 242 of 2007 dismissed on 21.07.2009. The petitioner in this second round of litigation seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to release the residential house as shown in the photographs (Annexure P-16).

Since the afore-stated plea was very much available in the earlier round of litigation and this court rejected the petitioner''s claim on the ground that no objection u/s 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for release of the house was filed and that the petitioner being a post-acquisition vendee, had no locus standi to question the acquisition. In these circumstances, while we cannot pass any order contrary to the earlier decision of this Court, cited above, this Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue its cause before the respondent-authorities.

Ordered accordingly"

The petitioner has now filed this third writ petition averring that the acquisition proceedings undertaken vide the above mentioned notification have lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ''2013 Act'').

The question that arises for consideration at the very out set is as to whether the petitioner has any locus-standi to file the present Writ Petition and claim that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed?

This Court in C.W.P. No. 9406 of 1987 decided on 18.04.2007 has returned a categoric finding which reads as under:-

" The sequence of facts when considered shows that rightful owners of the land had accepted the acquisition and in fact, the mother of petitioner No. 1 was impleaded as a party along with other legal representatives of Ranjit Kaur before the Reference Court (in Reference u/s 18 of the Act). The owners having received part of the compensation, the petitioner have no right to impugn or challenge the acquisition proceedings.

Learned counsel for the respondent State has pleaded that the petitioners admittedly had not filed any objection u/s 5A of the Act, therefore, had waived the objections. With regard to right of petitioner No. 2, it has been argued that since the owners have not challenged the acquisition proceedings, therefore, lessee would have no right to challenge the proceedings. Even application u/s 30 of the Act has not been filed so as to claim part of the compensation. Only the issue of quantum of compensation payable to petitioners, if at all, can be raised, the acquisition proceedings, however, cannot be challenged."

(emphasis applied)

This court while holding so took into account the fact that Ranjeet Kaur, the owner of the land, had filed reference u/s 18 of the Act and on her demise on 23.01.1979 during the pendency of the said proceedings, her legal representatives were brought on record, which were eight in number. One of them Smt. Anoop Darshan Kaur was none other than the mother of petitioner No. 1 in CWP No. 9406 of 1987. Petitioner No. 1 in that case had been claiming her rights under a Will, which was also executed after the passing of the award. However, the said petitioner is not a party to the instant proceedings and it is M/s. National Packing Industries, which was petitioner No. 2 in those proceedings and who has now filed C.W.P. No. 2304 of 2014 and claims its right on the basis of lease deed dated 27.11.1973. The claim of M/s. National Packing Industries was also rejected by this court earlier for want of locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings.

The petitioner, in this case, claims to be the owner of the acquired land vide sale deed executed on 21.02.1995. The notification u/s 4 of the Act acquiring this land was admittedly issued on 01.10.1973. The petitioner has averred that the said land was leased out to it by Smt. Ranjeet Kaur i.e. owner of the aforesaid land vide lease deed dated 27.11.1973, which is also admittedly subsequent to the notification issued u/s 4 of the Act.

Taking notice of these facts, this Court vide order dated 12.02.2014 thus observed as under:-

Though, prima facie, we are not satisfied with the bonafide of the petitioner''s claim as there is no convincing document to show that he is an interested person before acquisition of land vide Award dated 21.09.1978, however, it is insisted before us that the authorities are hell bent to demolish the residential house shown in the photographs placed on record.

With a view to give one more but last opportunity to the petitioner to place on record the relevant material, list on 21.02.2014.

xxx xxx xxx

The petitioner has thereafter placed on record documents, Annexures P-19 to P-31, to establish that he became an ''interested person'' before the acquisition of land vide award dated 21.09.1978. None of these documents also, however, support the petitioner''s cause. The owners of the land have accepted the compensation as has been duly recorded in the proceedings in CWP No. 9406 of 1987.

The question whether a subsequent vendee has got locus standi to assail the acquisition process has been set at rest by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in more than one decision. In Smt. Sneh Prabha etc. Vs. State of U.P. and Another, it was ruled that:

" It is settled law that any person who purchases land after publication of the notification u/s 4(1), does so at his/her own peril. The object of publication of the notification u/s 4(1) is notice to everyone that the land is needed or is likely to be needed for public purpose and the acquisition proceedings point out an impediment to anyone to encumber the land acquired thereunder. It authorises the designated officer to enter upon the land to do preliminaries etc. Therefore, any alienation of land after the publication of the notification u/s 4(1) does not bind the Government or the beneficiary under the acquisition. On taking possession of the land, all rights titles and interests in land stand vested in the State, u/s 16 of the Act, free from all encumbrances and thereby absolute title in the land is acquired thereunder. If any subsequent purchaser acquires land, his/her only right would be subject to the provisions of the Act and/or to receive compensation for the land."

In Meera Sahni Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Others, the Apex Court reiterated the said principle and held that :

" A number of decisions of this Court have recognized the aforesaid proposition of law wherein it was held that subsequent purchaser cannot challenge acquisition proceedings and also the validity of the notification or the irregularity in taking possession of the land after the declaration u/s 6 of the Act.

Xxx xxx xx

In view of the aforesaid decisions it is by now well settled law that under the Land Acquisition Act the subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings and that he would be only entitled to get the compensation"

The petitioner who got executed the Lease Deed after issuance of Section 4 notification and the so-called Sale Deed in the year 1995 much after passing the Award, thus, has no locus standi to question the acquisition proceedings much less to claim the benefit under 2013 Act. No fresh cause of action has accrued to the petitioner on coming into force of the 2013 Act. No person can be permitted to circumvent the law in the manner suggested by the petitioner by trying to invoke misplaced sympathy.

The petitioners had admittedly shifted their factory premises from the land in question in the year 1999 and now in a turn around are alleging that the said land should be released from acquisition because their residential house is in existence over the said land. Further more, once it is clear that the petitioners did not have any claim and were not interested person before the acquisition of the land, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed in this writ petition. It would be a travesty of justice in case the prayer of the petitioners is allowed wherein the original land owner had accepted the compensation qua the land. The petitioners who allege to have purchased the land vide sale deed dated 21.02.1995 came into the picture even as a lessee after the issuance of the notification u/s 4 of the Act on 01.10.1973, cannot seek the benefit of 2013 Act as the cause to invoke provisions of 2013 Act originates from the Old Act where under petitioner had no locus-standi to challenge the acquisition.

The argument of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that in view of the 2013 Act, the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed because the petitioners continued to be in possession of the demised land is not tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The provisions of the beneficial legislation cannot be permitted to be misused to the undue advantage of a person, who managed to hold on to the acquired land without any right whatsoever for all these years. It would amount to giving a premium on a wrong doing, which cannot be permitted.

Keeping in view the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.