2004 (12) TMI 713 - SC - Indian Laws

Exemption of land units from acquisition - Challenged the discrimination and arbitrariness in Acquisition Proceedings - violation of the Fundamental Rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Validity of Exemption Granted to Certain Units - change of user of land from agriculture to industrial purpose - HELD THAT - It is trite law that not only land but also structure on land can be acquired under the Act. As to whether in a given set of circumstances certain land should be exempted from acquisition only for the reason that some construction had been carried out is a matter of policy and not of law. If after considering all the circumstances the State Government has taken the view that exemption of the lands of the appellants would render askew the development scheme of the industrial estate it is not possible for the High Court or this Court to interfere with the satisfaction of the concerned authorities. We see no ground on which the appellants could have maintained that their lands should be exempted from acquisition. Even if three of the parties had been wrongly exempted from acquisition that gives no right to the appellants to seek similar relief. It is rightly pointed out by the High Court that merely because a representation was made by the Director Town and Country Planning that upon gift of certain land to the Gram Panchayat for widening of the passage permission for change of user of land would be granted such a promise is not one capable of being enforced against the State Government. The High Court has rightly pointed out that if the appellants are so desirous they may seek invalidation of the gifts in favour of the Gram Panchayat on the ground of failure of the Director Town and Country Planning to fulfil his commitment. That however does not render the acquisition proceedings illegal. No other ground has been made out. In our view therefore no fault can be found with the judgment rendered by the Division Bench. We find no merit in the appeals which are hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Discrimination and Arbitrariness in Acquisition Proceedings.
2. Estoppel Against the State Government.
3. Validity of Exemption Granted to Certain Units.
4. Legality of Acquisition Proceedings.

Summary:

1. Discrimination and Arbitrariness in Acquisition Proceedings:
The appellants contended that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated by discrimination and arbitrariness, violating their Fundamental Rights under Article 14 of the Constitution. They argued that while M/s K.C. Fibres and M/s Amar Elastomers were granted exemptions despite violations, the appellants, who followed the law, were discriminated against. The High Court found that the State Government's decision to exempt certain lands was based on tangible steps taken towards industrial production, which the appellants had not demonstrated. The Court held that the authority responsible for planned development is best positioned to judge which land can be exempted without jeopardizing the development scheme.

2. Estoppel Against the State Government:
The appellants argued that they had been persuaded to gift land to the Gram Panchayat for widening the passage with the understanding that they would be granted permission for change of land use. They claimed that the State Government and the Director of Industries were estopped from acquiring the land. The High Court pointed out that such a promise is not enforceable against the State Government. The Court suggested that the appellants could seek invalidation of the gifts if the commitment was not fulfilled, but this does not render the acquisition proceedings illegal.

3. Validity of Exemption Granted to Certain Units:
The appellants argued that the exemptions granted to M/s Dinar Spinning Mills, M/s Amar Elastomers, and M/s K.C. Fibre Ltd. were not based on a uniform yardstick. The High Court noted that even if the exemptions were erroneous, Article 14 does not mandate that similar illegal relief be granted to the appellants. The Court cited the principle that "two wrongs do not make one right," emphasizing that the appellants must establish their case on its own merits and not by claiming negative equality.

4. Legality of Acquisition Proceedings:
The High Court found that the acquisition proceedings were neither vitiated nor illegal. The affidavits filed by the Director of Industries and the District Town Planner indicated that the acquisition was for setting up Phase-IV of the Industrial Estate, Kundli, supervised by the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation. The Court held that the failure of the State Government to file a return was not fatal, as the nodal agency had filed affidavits of competent officers. The Court concluded that the planned development of the industrial estate would be jeopardized if the appellants' lands were exempted from acquisition.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, finding no merit in the appeals. The acquisition proceedings were deemed legal and justified, and the appellants' claims of discrimination and estoppel were rejected. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.