SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, CJI., HIMA KOHLI, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
The State of Rajasthan and Another – Appellants
Versus
Ultratech Cement Ltd. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5841 of 2022, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37439 of 2016
Decided On : 26-08-2022
Land Allotment - Cement Plant - Section 92 of the L.R. Act - [Section 92 of the L.R. Act] - The court discussed the approval for reservation and allocation of land under Section 92 of the L.R. Act for setting up a cement plant. The court emphasized the conditions stipulated in the approval letter and the requirement for the respondent-Company to produce a No Objection Certificate/order from the High Court permitting allocation of 'Gair-Mumkin Johad' land.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-Company sought land for setting up a cement plant and applied for adjoining mining leases. The State Government issued and cancelled a letter of intent multiple times. The District Collector approved the allocation of land subject to certain conditions, including the production of a No Objection Certificate from the High Court. The respondent-Company filed a writ petition challenging the requirement for the NOC, which was dismissed by the Single Judge and later appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the subject land did not fall within any catchment area, nor did water collect there, and there was no natural water reservoir. The court emphasized the spot inspection reports and recommendations made by the revenue authorities, which were not disputed by the State Government. The court held that the appellant-State Government's refusal to rectify the error in the revenue records was unjustified.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant-State Government's challenge against the allocation of land for the cement plant was justified, considering the absence of a natural water reservoir on the subject land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the spot inspection reports and recommendations of the revenue authorities, emphasizing that there was no natural water reservoir on the subject land. The court also highlighted the respondent-Company's undertakings for compensatory measures and the absence of any uncertainty regarding the ecological impact.
Final Decision: The court upheld the impugned judgment and directed the appellant-State Government to process the allotment of the subject land in favor of the respondent-Company within four weeks.
JUDGMENT :
HIMA KOHLI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant-State of Rajasthan1 [in short ‘State Government’] has assailed the judgment dated 26th February, 2016, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur whereby the order dated 05th October, 2012, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing a writ petition preferred by the respondent-Ultratech Cement Ltd.2 [in short ‘Company’] (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15416 of 2012) was set aside and its appeal allowed with a direction to the appellant-State Government to process the allotment of the land in favour of the respondent-Company for setting up a cement plant in Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu, in terms of the letter of allotment dated 23rd February, 2012.
3. A brief overview of the facts of the case is necessary.
3.1 With the idea of setting up a Cement plant having the capacity of 3 million tons of cement per annum in four villages situated in Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu, spreading over 1000 hectares of land, the respondent-Company purchased/acquired 400 hectares of land through direct negotiations and took steps to acquire the remaining part of land through private negotiations, as also by way of allotment through RIICO. For executing the project of cement manufacturing, the respondent-Company applied to the appellant-State Government in the year 2000-2001 for grant of adjoining mining leases for mineral lime stone (cement grade) in Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu. A letter of intent3 [in short ‘LOI’] was issued by the appellant-State Government on 16th March, 2002 in respect of two mining leases, but due to non-availability of environment clearance within the stipulated time, the said LOI was cancelled by the State Government by order dated 07th February, 2005. The said order was challenged by the respondent-Company by preferring a revision petition before the Mines Tribunal which was allowed vide order dated 19th July, 2007 and the matter was remitted back to the State Government for fresh examination in accordance with law. The appellant-State Government vide order dated 22nd November, 2007, restored the LOI subject to compliance of certain conditions and on an undertaking to be furnished by the respondent-Company. The said LOI was however, cancelled by the Mines Tribunal vide order dated 29th July, 2009. Aggrieved by the said cancellation order, the respondent-Company approached the High Court by filing a writ petition which was allowed vide order dated 19th August, 2010 and the appellant-State Government finally issued a LOI on 28th October, 2010.
3.2 This time, the District Collector, Jhunjhunu issued an approval letter dated 23rd February, 2012, for allocation of Government land falling under mining lease area to the respondent-Company for setting up a cement plant subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions stipulated therein. The captioned letter issued by the District Collector, Jhunjhunu is extracted herein-below:
“Sir,
Vide above referred letter under above mentioned subject, the State Government has granted approval for reservation and allocation of land falling under mining lease area for setting up a cement plant is granted under Section 92 of the L.R. Act which shall be subject to the fulfillment of the below mentioned conditions:
(i) Approval for allocation of the land recorded as pasture land in the mining leased area is given in favour of the applicant company subject to the condition that the company shall surrender the land equivalent to the allocated land after purchasing it in the same village and after developing it as grazing land and will also make it available to the concerned Gram Panchayat after doing fencing of the four walls of the land.
(ii) In-principle consent for allocation of the gair-mumkin johad land falling under mining lease area, as applied for by the company, is given in favour of the company subject to the condition that company shall purchase other land and develop
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision to allocate land for setting up a cement plant should be based on factual findings and spot inspection reports, rather than relyi....
Protection of prohibited land and removal of illegal encroachments under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
The court emphasized the need for local authorities' input in land allotment decisions to ensure compliance with community needs and statutory obligations.
The judgment established the importance of environmental laws and the requirement to protect and improve the environment. It emphasized that decisions regarding land allotment should be made with pro....
The allotment of land to the respondent companies was illegal and violative of the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and the Rules made thereunder.
before making the allotment the State Authorities were required to set apart the land for access to the lands of the khatedar tenants, their dhani and the public utilities and the entries
The court established that compliance with mining and environmental regulations is essential, and local grievances about noise and dust do not invalidate legal operations as long as relevant consents....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.