SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
Anil Agarwal Foundation Etc. Etc. – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011 With Civil Appeal Nos. 1148-1150 of 2011, Civil Appeal Nos. 1152-1154 of 2011, Civil Appeal Nos. 1161-1169 of 2011
Decided on : 12-04-2023
Key Points: - Supreme Court dismissed appeals, upholding High Court order quashing land acquisition proceedings for ~6000 acres in favor of Anil Agarwal Foundation due to non-compliance with Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and rules (!) (!) (!) - Acquisition initiated by private company (Vedanta/Anil Agarwal Foundation) identifying land, with MoU signed on 19.07.2006 when it was private, violating Section 44B (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - No proper Land Acquisition Committee under Rule 3; Core Committee not substitute; no inquiry/report under Rule 4 on suitability, negotiations, excessiveness (!) (!) (!) - Beneficiary not valid public company; conversion from Section 25 private limited by guarantee lacked compliance with Companies Act sections like 23, 31 (!) (!) (!) - Section 6 declarations issued without Section 41 agreement or Rule 4(4) compliance; notifications violated Sections 39, 40 (!) (!) (!) - PIL maintainable for marginalized landowners (6000 families, 30,000 affected); public interest due to environmental impact near Wildlife Sanctuary, rivers under public trust (!) (!) (!) (!) - State offered undue favors/largesse to company (tax exemptions, autonomy, infrastructure); arbitrary, violative of Article 14 (!) (!) (!) - Non-application of mind on environmental aspects (rivers Nuanai/Nala, proximity to Balukhand Sanctuary); affects ecology, public trust doctrine (!) (!) (!) - High Court findings on 15 issues affirmed; entire proceedings vitiated from initiation, including awards, possession (!) (!) (!) - Costs of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on Anil Agarwal Foundation (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. overview of the land acquisition request and agreement process. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments against high court’s decision and grounds for appeal. (Para 4) |
| 4. arguments from the plaintiffs focusing on public interest. (Para 5) |
| 5. judicial review of the land acquisition proceedings. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 6. final decision and directives issued by the court. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Orissa dated 16.11.2010 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 10325 of 2008, 12948 of 2008 and 6863 of 2009 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions and has quashed the land acquisition proceedings in question including the notifications under Section 4 (1) and 6 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) and the awards passed in the land acquisition proceedings for acquisition of lands in favour of the appellant – beneficiary company and directed that the possession of the acquired lands shall be restored to the respective landowners and on restoration of the possession to the landowners, they shall refund the amounts received by them as compensation or otherwise in respect of their lands. By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has also quashed the grant of Government Land in favour of the beneficiary company under Rule 5 of the Government Land Settlement Rules with a direction to the State Government to resume the lands which were granted to the beneficiary company by way of lease, the appellant – the beneficiary company and others have preferred the present appeals.
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that before the High Court, two writ petitions were filed by the original landowners whose lands have been acquired and one writ petition was filed by way of public interest litigation on behalf of the small landholders, who could not approach the Court and also on behalf of the people of the locality.
2.1 It is required to be noted that the dispute is with respect to the acquisition of about 6000 acres of land belonging to about 6000 families, affecting approximately 30,000 people.
3. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under:-
3.1 That on 23.06.2006, one Mohit Kumar Rana, Principal, A.T. Kearney Limited submitted an application before the State Government stating that M/s. Vedanta Resources Limited is contemplating to set up a University in Orissa to impart education in under-graduate and postgraduate courses in Engineering, Medicine, Management, General Science and Humanities etc. It was further stated in the application that the Group had given a presentation to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Orissa during April, 2006. That after visiting different sites in Orissa, their team have selected a site on the outskirt of Puri on the Puri-Konark marine drive to be the place ideal for establishment of the University. Therefore, it was, inter alia, prayed that the Government of Orissa should make available 15,000 acres of contiguous land around Nuanai, in the district of Puri in Bhubneswar-Puri-Konark marine drive. It was also prayed that the Government of Orissa should also coordinate the land acquisition process by appointment of a Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Group prayed that they require 1500 acres of land for Phase-I to be acquired by September, 2006 and the balance by December, 2006. Thereafter, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the Government of Orissa and Vedanta Foundation on 19.07.2006. The Government of Orissa confirmed the availability of contiguous land of about 8000 acres and to make endeavour to provide an additional contiguous land and other facilities as required by the Foundation.
3.2 That a Private Limited Company incorporate
AI
Even though there is no period of limitation for filing petitions under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner should approach the Court without loss of time and if there is delay, t....
The judgment establishes the importance of satisfying the public purpose requirement under Section 3(f) and the need for compliance with the procedural safeguards of Section 5A in land acquisition pr....
The court upheld that land acquisition for public purpose, as defined under the Land Acquisition Act, was valid despite petitioners' claims of private benefit and procedural violations.
If there is failure to publish notification in two daily newspapers, notification and consequential proceedings for acquiring land would stand vitiated for non-compliance of essential conditions of S....
The court affirmed that land acquisition can be valid if partly funded by the State, satisfying public purpose requirements, regardless of the controlling shareholding of the acquiring corporation.
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.