Back
Supreme Court of India
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI., RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI & RANJAN GOGOI, JJ.
M/s V.K.M. Kattha Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Versus
State of Haryana & Others
Civil Appeal No. 6792 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19869 of 2008)
Decided On : 16-08-2013
Land Acquisition Act, 1894- Section 4- Purpose of acquiring land- The appellant-Company itself is running an industry on the date of the notification, held that there was no justification in acquiring a running industrial unit for industrialization of the area. (Para 16)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894- Section 4- No proof of publication of notification -It is clear that in spite of knowing the specific ground raised by the appellant about the non-publication of the substance of the notification as prescribed under the Act in the locality concerned, neither the State nor the Land Acquisition Collector availed the opportunity of filing reply refuting the same- In such circumstances, no other option except to hold that there was no publication of the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the locality which is held to be mandatory. (Para 15)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894- Section 5A-Failed to file any objections-If the appellant-Company had the opportunity of participating in the enquiry under Section 5A, it would be open to the Company to make a representation for exclusion like others and there would be every possibility for the State Government to accede to the request since the appellant-Company is running an industry which is similar to the public purpose for which lands were being acquired. (Para 17)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894- Section 6- Writ petition against the award- The appellant-Company has filed the writ petition within a reasonable time, namely, within 5 weeks of the passing of the award, held that all the 4 decisions referred to and relied on by the High Court are inapplicable to the facts of the present case- On this ground itself, the impugned order dismissing the writ petition held liable to be set aside. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
Haryana Government Industries Department issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of certain for a public purpose, namely, for the development of a Industrial Estate and the lands belonging to the appellant Company, where it was running industrial unit, were covered in the said notification.
Findings of the Court:
The appellant-Company has filed the writ petition within a reasonable time, namely, within 5 weeks of the passing of the award. On this ground itself, the impugned order dismissing the writ petition is liable to be set aside.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Judgment :-
P. Sathasivam, CJI.
1) Leave granted.
2) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.07.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 13208 of 2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by M/s V.K.M. Kattha Industries Pvt. Ltd.-the appellant-Company.
3) Brief Facts:
(a) The appellant-Company is an industrial unit engaged in manufacturing of kattha for various tobacco and non-tobacco products, having its office at Janti Kalan Road, Post Office Kundli, District Sonipat. Vide sale deed dated 10.05.1994, the appellant-Company purchased a running industrial unit comprised in Rect. No. 75, Khasra No. 25, Rect. No. 80, Khasra Nos. 5/1 and 6/2 total measuring 23 kanals 14 marlas and got it registered as a Small Scale Industrial Unit with the Director, Industries Department, Haryana. On 05.05.2003, the appellant-Company leased out the running industrial unit to one M/s Anand Agro Products.
(b) On 21.12.2005, Haryana Government Industries Department issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ‘the Act’) for acquisition of certain lands situated in Village Kundli and Village Sirsa for a public purpose, namely, for the development of a Industrial Estate and the lands belonging to the appellant Company were covered in the said notification. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was subsequently made on 29.12.2006 and the award was announced on 15.07.2007.
(c) Being aggrieved by the notifications dated 21.12.2005 and 29.12.2006, the appellant-Company preferred CWP No. 13208 of 2007 before the High Court. By order dated 08.07.2008, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
(d) Being aggrieved of the same, the appellant-Company has preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
4) Heard Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant-Company, Mr. Manjit Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State.
Contentions:
5) Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant-Company submitted as under:- (i) The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was not published in the locality wherein the land situate which prevented the appellant-Company from making objection under Section 5A of the Act. (ii) As the appellant-Company itself is a running industry on the date of the notification, the said land cannot be acquired for a public purpose, namely, for the development of Industrial Estate. (iii) The High Court committed an error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-Company herein on the ground that the same is not maintainable after the announcement of award, particularly, when the appellant-Company failed to file any objection under Section 5A of the Act. The decisions of this Court relied on by the High Court are not applicable to the facts of this case and are distinguishable. (v) Inasmuch as the respondent-State itself has excluded more than 76 acres of land and the appellant is running an industry even as on date, it ought to have excluded and such exclusion would not affect the execution of the Scheme.
6) On the other hand, Mr. Manjit Singh, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Haryana submitted that inasmuch as the land acquisition authorities have complied with all the formalities, the appellant-Company failed to file objection under Section 5A of the Act and the writ petition having been filed in the High Court after passing of the award, the High Court is fully justified in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-Company.
7) We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused all the relevant materials.
Discussion:
8) Coming to the contention of learned senior counsel for the appellant about the dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court on the ground that the same has been filed after passing of th
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
