Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. vs State of Bihar

Q: Key Points

Ratio Decidendi: The expression "fee" is comprehended within the expression "tax" for the purpose of Article 265 of the Constitution, requiring legislative support (authority of law) for the levy and collection of any fee [opening para] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . No tax or fee can be levied or collected without statutory authority; mere existence of legislative entries (e.g., Entries 17/66 List II) does not suffice without specific enactment (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . Claims of riparian or prescriptive/easementary rights require adjudication in a properly instituted civil suit with pleadings and evidence, not in writ proceedings under Article 226 (!) (!) . The Supreme Court will not examine pure questions of law on local statutes (e.g., irrigation acts) or contractual liability as a court of first instance if not properly pleaded/argued below or lacking High Court findings, absent intertwining with constitutional interpretation (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(SC) 1226

J.CHELAMESWAR, S.ABDUL NAZEER
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Parties :- Krishnanand Pandeya, Jayesh Gaurav, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Advs.

Judgement Key Points

Ratio Decidendi:

The expression "fee" is comprehended within the expression "tax" for the purpose of Article 265 of the Constitution, requiring legislative support (authority of law) for the levy and collection of any fee [opening para] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

No tax or fee can be levied or collected without statutory authority; mere existence of legislative entries (e.g., Entries 17/66 List II) does not suffice without specific enactment (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Claims of riparian or prescriptive/easementary rights require adjudication in a properly instituted civil suit with pleadings and evidence, not in writ proceedings under Article 226 (!) (!) .

The Supreme Court will not examine pure questions of law on local statutes (e.g., irrigation acts) or contractual liability as a court of first instance if not properly pleaded/argued below or lacking High Court findings, absent intertwining with constitutional interpretation (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

JUDGMENT

Chelameswar, J. -

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5360/2005

This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 20.8.2004 in CWJC No.3819 of 1993 of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi.

2. The appellants herein are the unsuccessful petitioners before the High Court.

3. A brief factual background of the matter is as follows:

The first appellant-Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. (for short "TISCO") is a company registered under the Companies Act having an industrial unit at Jamshedpur in the district of Singhbhum, East Bihar (Now the State of Jharkhand). The industrial unit is primarily engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of iron and steel products. For the purpose of establishing the industry TISCO required considerable extent of land. A huge extent of land admeasuring 15,725 acres was acquired by the Government and conveyed to TISCO by the then Secretary of State of India in Council by two conveyances dated 19.1.1912 and 23.9.1929.

4. The industrial unit and township connected with TISCO came into existence over a period of time on the said parcel of land. [Over a period of time a city came into existence around the industrial unit.]. It is an admitted fact that a river 'Subarnrekha' flows p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(SC) 1226

J.CHELAMESWAR, S.ABDUL NAZEERTata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. – AppellantVersusState of Bihar – Respondent

J.CHELAMESWAR, S.ABDUL NAZEER
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent