Dismissed

Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Pvt. Ltd. v. H.S.I.D.C. and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Jan 2009CWP/21521/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging notices for enhanced land compensation. It held that no final demand had been raised per the agreement and court order, so no aggrieved order existed to quash at this stage.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed as there was no final order against the petitioner to be aggrieved by.

Mitsui Kinzoku Components India… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

CWP No.21521 of 2008

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.21521 of 2008 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: 13.1.2009

¶6

Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Pvt. Ltd.

¶7

..Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation & Ors.

¶10

Respondents

¶11

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma

¶12

Present: Mr.Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.Tushar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral)

¶14

This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 21521 and 21522 of 2008 titled Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation & Ors., and Musashi Auto Parts India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation & Ors., as common questions of law and fact are involved in both these writ petitions.

¶15

For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP

¶16

CWP No.21521 of 2008

¶17

¶18

No.21521 of 2008.

¶19

The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus and certiorari to quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 30.11.2007 as well as the order dated 18.9.2008 attached as Annexure P.3 and Annexure P.12, respectively, with this writ petition.

¶20

The petitioner company is engaged in manufacturing of automobiles catalysts. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., a State Government undertaking acquired agricultural land in Districts Gurgaon and Rewari. The petitioner was allotted one industrial plot on the terms and conditions as contained in the agreement entered into between the parties. Subsequently, notice Annexure P.3 was issued to the petitioner calling upon them to pay additional amount on the ground of enhancement of compensation by the Reference Court qua the land acquired by the respondents out of which the industrial plot stood allotted to the petitioner.

¶21

The petitioner replied to the notice and took number of objections against the claim raised by the respondents. As in pursuance of the objections raised by the petitioner, details as to how the amount was calculated was not supplied, the petitioner approached this court by way of CWP No.192 of 2008 which was disposed of by passing the following order:-

¶22

“ Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Akshay Bhan has contended that representations have been made to the

¶23

CWP No.21521 of 2008

¶24

¶25

Managing Director, Respondent No.2, requesting him to furnish copies of the documents and any other relevant material on the basis of which the alleged demand of enhanced payment has been made from the petitioners, but neither any reply has been received, nor any documents have been supplied by the managing Director.

¶26

Let the documents and the material, whatsoever is in the possession of the respondents be supplied to the petitioners so as to enable them to make comprehensive representation to Respondent No.2 against demand raised vide notice date 04.12.2007. On receipt of the representations by the Petitioners in this regard, Respondent No.2 shall pass a speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners.

¶27

Till the order is passed, the Respondents will not insist for payment of the impugned demand.

¶28

With the aforesaid direction, these petitions stand disposed off.”

¶29

In pursuance of the order passed, information was supplied which according to the petitioner is not as per the order passed by this court.

¶30

However, after giving personal hearing to the petitioner impugned order Annexure P.12 has been passed by the competent authority.

¶31

It is pertinent to mention here that in the appeal filed by the

¶32

CWP No.21521 of 2008

¶33

¶34

State against the reference order enhancing the compensation, this court had directed the State of Haryana to pay 50 per cent of the enhanced amount to the land-owners while balance 50 percent was ordered to be deposited in the bank.

¶35

While allowing the appeal filed by the State, this court remanded the case back to Reference Court with the direction to redetermine the compensation payable to the land-owners. This court further ordered that amount already paid to the land-owners would not be taken back.

¶36

In view of position explained above the Managing Director of the respondent-corporation has passed a speaking order as directed by this Court. The operative part of the order reads as under:-

¶37

“................It will meet the interest of justice that if the allottees/petitioners do not intend to pay the additional price at the rate of Rs.304.06 per sq. mtr. subject to its final determination by the Corporation in the light of awards by Reference Court or orders, by Hon'ble High Court, they should come forward with undertakings that whatever the amount is finally released by the Corporation in furtherance of enhanced compensation in accordance with the Land acquisition Act shall be payable by the allottees/petitioners along with interest and such undertakings shall also be in consonance with the provisions already existing in the agreements entered into between the Corporation and allottees/petitioners. Since the

¶38

CWP No.21521 of 2008

¶39

¶40

Corporation recovers the additional price from its allottees as a consequence of enhancement in the compensation only after paying the amount of compensation, the plea of the allottees/petitioners against their liability to pay the interest on the amount of compensation has no basis and therefore, they can not escape from the liability to pay interest. On the other hand, it is also ordered that copies of all the awards passed by the Reference Court, Rewari while adjudicating the references may be made available at the field office of the Corporation at Bawal as well as Head office and the allottees/petitioners will be at liberty to collect the copies thereof from Corporate office of the Corporation at Panchkula or the Field office at Bawal on any working day after this order.”

¶41

Thus, reading of the order would show that liberty has been given to the petitioner to pay the amount demanded subject to its final determination by the Corporation in the light of award of the Reference Court or orders by the High Court. The authority, has also given liberty to the petitioner not to pay the amount and merely furnish an undertaking to the following effect:-

¶42

“ ........ undertakings that whatever the amount is finally released by the Corporation in furtherance of enhanced compensation in accordance with the Land acquisition Act shall be payable by the allottees/petitioners along with

¶43

CWP No.21521 of 2008

¶44

¶45

interest and such undertaking shall also be in consonance with the provisions already existing in the agreements entered into between the Corporation and allottees/petitioners.”

¶46

Thus, it would be seen that at present there is no order against the petitioner with which the petitioner may be aggrieved as demand is yet to be raised by the Corporation after determination of compensation by the Reference Court and demand to be raised is to be strictly in consequence with the amount paid by the Corporation in pursuance to the enhancement under Land Acquisition Act and as per the terms of agreement entered between the parties.

¶47

The contention of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in the event of filing of undertaking, the petitioner would be bound by demand of respondents, even if arbitrary, is totally misconceived and imaginary as the order stipulates, that undertaking is to be given as per agreed terms of the parties.

¶48

The petitioner, thus, has no cause at present to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

¶49

No merit.

¶50

Dismissed.

¶51

(Vinod K.Sharma) Judge

¶52

13.1.2009 rp

Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Pvt. Ltd. v. H.S.I.D.C. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Pvt. Ltd. v. H.S.I.D.C. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhaju Ram and Ors. Vs Basant Nath

Kashmir Singh Vs Punjabi University and Anr.

S D O Uhbvnl and Ors. Vs M/S Sehjad Trading Co.

Madan Lal and Anr. Vs Ravi Setia and Ors.

Gurdev Kaur Vs Inderjit Singh

Sukhdev Singh Vs Gram Panchayat