SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 391

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, VIKRAM NATH, JJ.
Bishambhar Prasad – Appellant
Versus
M/s Arfat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2963 of 2023, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14970 of 2021
WITH
The Rajasthan Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
M/s Arfat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2965 of 2023, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13106 of 2021
WITH
The State of Rajasthan and Another – Appellants
Versus
M/s Arfat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2964 of 2023, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13008 of 2021
WITH
The President, J.K. Staple and Acrylic Employees Union and Others – Appellants
Versus
M/s Arfat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2966 of 2023, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 960 of 2022
WITH
Rajasthan Trade Union Kendra – Appellant
Versus
M/s Arfat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2967 of 2023, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5073 of 2023, Special Leave Petition (c) Diary No. 8380 of 2022
Decided On : 20-04-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Nilofar Khan, AOR Mr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anuj Bhandari, AOR Mr. Arpit Prakash, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Jain, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR Ms. Shruti Jose, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Uday Gupta, Adv. Ms. Shivani M. Lal, Adv. Ms. Sanam Singh, Adv. Mr. S. S. Sisodia, Adv. Mr. M. K. Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Harish Dasan, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Hiren Dasan, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR Ms. Shruti Jose, Adv. Mr. Vivek Jain, Adv. Ms. Suchitra Kumbhat, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Jain, Adv. Ms. Honey Kumbhat, Adv. Mr. Rajat Jain, Adv. Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, Adv. Ms. Arju Paul, Adv. Ms. Deepti Arya, Adv. Ms. Manisha Gupta, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Buxy, AOR Mr. Vivek Jain, AOR Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anuj Bhandari, AOR Mr. Arpit Prakash, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Jain, Adv.

Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 - Section 100 - Rajasthan Industrial Areas Allotment Rules, 1959 - RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979 - Appeal arising from an order setting aside governmental cancellation of industrial permissions - Court reiterated that the relationship of lessor-lessee is between the State Government and the lessee, emphasizing that RIICO had no authority to grant permissions or to cancel supplements granted to the lessee - The State retained ownership and the approval processes must comply with due statutory provisions. (Paras 104, 105)

(B) Natural Justice - Requirement for a fair hearing does not apply where the permissions granted were illegitimate from the outset, as RIICO acted beyond its jurisdiction. (Para 74)

(C) Legitimate Expectations - No enforceable expectation arises from actions taken under invalid authority; public interest was prioritized against private claims. (Para 92)

(D)

Result: Appeals allowed; the High Court's order is set aside and the writ petition dismissed. (Para 109)

JUDGMENT :

SURYA KANT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This batch of appeals arises from the judgment dated 20.07.2021 passed by the Jaipur Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan whereby the Writ Petition filed by Respondent No. 1-M/s. Arfat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. in all connected matters was allowed. As a corollary, the decision by the Cabinet Committee of the State of Rajasthan, and resulting instructions issued to the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (“RIICO”) to cancel a series of permissions and approvals granted/awarded to Respondent No. 1 in respect of industrial land in Kota, Rajasthan, were set aside.

3. There are different Appellants before us in the respective SLPs. They include the State of Rajasthan (hereinafter, “State of Rajasthan” or “State Government”), RIICO and various workers unions (hereinafter “Appellant Unions”). As the nature and type of relief sought by both the State of Rajasthan and RIICO, stand on a slightly different footing to that of the Appellant Unions, we will address the State of Rajasthan and RIICO (collectively, “Appellants”) separately, to maintain the distinction between the reliefs sought by them as compared to the Appellant Unions.

(A) FACTS

4. The dispute originates from the allotment of approximately 271.39 acres of land by the State of Rajasthan through the District Collector, Kota, in the Large-Scale Industrial Area, Kota (“LIA Kota”) to J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (“JKSL”) on 12.09.1958. Following the allotment, a lease deed was executed with JKSL by the Collector, Kota, and permission was granted for setting up its industrial units in the area. JKSL’s retention of the property was facilitated over the following decades through the execution of fresh lease deeds with respect to the same area, as and when the period specified in the earlier lease lapsed.

5. Just after the first allotment was initially made, the State Government exercised its powers under Section 100 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and formulated the RAJASTHAN INDUSTRIAL AREAS ALLOTMENT RULES , 1959 (“1959 Rules”) to regulate the allocation of land to entrepreneurs and the development of industrial areas across the State. Section 100 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act is provided below:

“100. Sale of land in Industrial and Commercial Areas - The State Government may make rules regulating sales of lands in industrial and commercial areas and may also impose an annual assessment of such lands, wherever necessary.”

6. Similarly, Rules 2, 8 and 9 of the 1959 Rules are also of some relevance and the same are reproduced below:

“2. Period for which land may be allotted - Land in industrial area may be allotted on lease-hold basis for a period of 99 years:

(a) for setting of a large-scale industry anywhere in the state, by the State Government in the Industries Department and in the case of large-scale tourism unit, the allotment shall be made by the Government in the Revenue Department.

(b) for setting up of other industries:

(i) in Jaipur District, by the Director of Industries, Rajasthan Jaipur provided that in case of a tourism unit the allotment shall be made by the Government in the Revenue Department.

(ii) in any other district, by the Collector concerned.

(bb) for the setting up of IT Industries Government land shall be allotted by the State Government in the Revenue Department on the recommendation of the Department of Information Technology and Communication.

(c) all allotment of land under clause (a) shall be made within a period of 60 days and under clause (b) within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the completed application in Form-B. In case applicants submit complete application electronically in Single window System Portal, it shall be disposed as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Enterprises Single Window Enabling and Clearance Rules, 2011.

Provided that the allotment of land for the purpose of setting up of Common Effluent Treatment Plant and related act


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top