P&H HC raps HSIIDC for not creating awareness about its scheme; says Court of law cannot be oblivious of ground reality

Read Order: Ajit Kumar & Another v. State of Haryana & Others

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, January 5, 2022: While granting relief to the landowners who were excluded from ‘Land Pooling Scheme’ notified by the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSIIDC) for not acting within time,the Punjab and Haryana High Court has sternly remarked that even though no detailed procedure and manner for inviting applications under the said scheme was prescribed, yet the Doctrine of Fair Play would come into operation.

Reflecting on the Court’s duty to step into the shoes of a litigant, the Division Bench of Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa and Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj stated that the Corporation cannot be permitted to take benefit of its own wrongs and defeat the rights accrued by way of legitimate expectations and doctrine of fair play in favour of the land owners. 

This Writ Petition was filed seeking a direction to the respondent-Corporation to consider and allot an industrial plot to the petitioners under the Land Pooling Scheme in lieu of the land of the petitioners acquired for the public purpose namely development and setting up of Industrial Model Township, Kharkhoda (IMT Kharkhoda).The petitioners were running an industry from the said land.

In 2010, HSIIDC issued a notification for acquiring the land for the development project. The petitioners filed objections which resulted in recommendation in favour of the release of the land to the extent of running a factory on a part of the land owned by the petitioners. The remaining area was thus recommended for acquisition with a comment that if the petitioners ever wished to expand their factory at a later date, the HSIIDC shall consider allotting 1-acre site at the rate of acquisition subject to payment of the applicable IDC/EDC/statutory charges.

A writ petition was filed against this recommendation which was partly allowed holding that it would be reasonable to direct release of 1 acre of land. The said judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court by two separate SLPs by the petitioners as well as the HSIIDC, and the same was dismissed. As a result, via a notification, an additional parcel of land along with the portion that was not acquired by HSIIDC was released. In the meanwhile, the respondent-HSIIDC had notified a Land Pooling Scheme on August 14,2012.

The petitioners claimed that since their land stood acquired by the HSIIDC, hence, they were seeking consideration in terms of the notified Land Pooling Scheme of the HSIIDC instead of monetary compensation and R & R policy.

The issue that arose in this case was whether the petitioners were entitled to be considered under the Scheme or they were to be debarred for not exercising the option within the period prescribed in scheme.

The HSIIDC argued that the option in question was to be exercised by landowners within 60 days but they failed to so. It was argued that having failed to apply before the cut off date prescribed under the scheme, the applications submitted at the behest of the petitioners on July 31,2020 could not be considered under the scheme after a delay of nearly 8 years.

It was contended that the grievance of the petitioners could not be considered because finality was to be given to the proceedings at a particular point in time, monetary compensation in respect of the land was already deposited with the competent Court and the petitioners were not ‘oustees’ within the Scheme.

The Court looked into the statement of object of the scheme and opined that it is a social welfare scheme intended to promote the welfare of the landowner and therefore it has to be interpreted on the parameter of a welfare scheme. It was never designed as a one- time measure, rather, the scheme aimed to extend the benefit even to the land owners whose land stood acquired prior in point of time. 

Disagreeing with the argument of HSIIDC, the Court said,“The suggested interpretation that the land owner under the Land Pooling Scheme is not an oustee, in our view would not be a correct approach in terms of the objects enshrined in the Land Pooling Scheme.”

The Court also opined that even though publication of the scheme in the gazette may be deemed as notice to the general public, however, it could not be overlooked that gazette notifications are ordinarily not available to the common man. Further, while addressing HSIIDC’s plea that allowing petitioner’s case would cause prejudice to the Corporation, the Court concluded that it cannot be said that merely by a change in the manner in which the compensation in lieu of land acquired is to be given to the landowner, it would cause prejudice to respondent.  

The failure on the part of the landowner to exercise an option on account of lack of information and knowledge of the scheme coupled with the evident failure on the part of the respondent- Corporation to apprise the landowners about the existence of the scheme and evasive response to the specific allegations of deliberate misconduct against the respondent-Corporation made the Court to come to the conclusion that a valuable right had accrued in favour of landowner to be given an opportunity to exercise an option.

The  High Court noted that the procedural safeguards have to be tested on the consequences that may visit a person affected or who claims to be prejudiced.

While allowing the petition, the Court directed the petitioners to be considered eligible under the Land Pooling Scheme and held that the HSIIDC shall be entitled to claim interest on the amount of monetary compensation deposited in the Court of Additional District Judge, Sonepat.The respondent was directed to hold a draw of lot for allotment of a plot to the petitioners under the Land Pooling Scheme within a period of three months thereafter.