Back
2016 Supreme(J&K) 101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, Tashi Rabstan, JJ.
Chenab Textile Mills Kathua J&K - Appellant
Vs.
Sat Paul and Ors. - Respondents
LPAOW No. 56 of 2013 and MP No. 71 of 2013
Decided On : 11-04-2016
For the Appellant : Sunil Sethi, Ravi Abrol
For the Respondents: M.K. Sharma, L.K. Moza
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of public interest in land acquisition proceedings, the discretionary nature of exercising powers under Article 226, and the need to balance competing interests.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Compliance with State Land Acquisition Act 1990 - Section 39, Section 41 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the compliance with sections 39 to 42 of the State Land Acquisition Act 1990 and the interpretation of Section 41. The court highlighted the importance of public interest and the discretion of the court in exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court also emphasized the need to balance competing interests and the discretionary nature of granting injunctions or stays in land acquisition proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant appealed against the order of the Writ Court quashing the acquisition of land for the appellant's textile unit. The appellant argued that the acquisition was for the benefit of the company and provided employment to the public. The respondents challenged the acquisition on grounds of non-compliance with statutory provisions and delay in filing the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the appellant, holding that the land acquisition proceedings could not be challenged after the award was passed. The court also held that there was substantial compliance with the statutory provisions and emphasized the importance of public interest in land acquisition proceedings.
Issues: (1) Whether the private respondents were justified in challenging the acquisition proceedings after the award was passed. (2) Whether the acquisition made was in violation of Section 39 to 42 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of public interest, the discretionary nature of exercising powers under Article 226, and the need to balance competing interests in land acquisition proceedings. The court also highlighted the principle that inconvenience to a smaller number of people must yield to the larger public interest.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Writ Court and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.
N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, J.
1. This appeal is filed against the order of the learned Writ Court made in OWP No. 228/2009 dated 13.05.2013 quashing the acquisition of land in respect of the respondents with liberty to the official respondents to reconsider the whole issue in the light of the provisions of State Land Acquisition Act 1990.
2. Mr. Sunil Sethi learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that 5th respondent in the appeal received the compensation and after receiving the same, he has filed the writ petition along with other respondents. Similarly, no land was acquired belonging to the private respondent Nos. 6, 14 and 15, still they have joined along with other writ petitioners and questioned the Government Notification and award. It is stated that the acquisition of land is for the benefit of the appellant for expansion of the Textile Unit providing employment to the public at large.
3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:
"Notification No. 04 of 2006 was issued on 29.12.2006 under section 4(1) of the State Land Acquisition Act 1990 (for short "Act of 1990") for the benefit of appellant-company which was shown as 3rd respondent in the writ petition. After the award was passed determining the compensation, the writ petition was filed by the respondents though similarly placed persons challenging the acquisition on identical grounds in OWP No. 698 of 2006 was dismissed by the writ court on 26.02.2010."
The writ court considered the rival submissions and held that section 39 to 42 of the Act was not complied with before acquiring the land on behalf of the appellant as no agreement was entered with the Government before the process of acquisition. The learned Single Judge further held that even after publication of the award, the acquisition can be challenged and relied on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2013 SC 856 (Patasi Devi Vs. State of Haryana and ors). The said order is challenged by the appellant by contending that once award is passed, the acquisition cannot be challenged in terms of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in 2000 (2) SCC 48 (Municipal Council Ahmednagar Vs. Shah Hyder Beig) and reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2013 SC 856 (Patasi Devi Vs. State of Haryana and ors), by the writ court is distinguishable on facts as it was in relation to release of the land already acquired and not challenging the acquisition proceedings.
4. Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel also submitted that there is three years delay in filing the writ petition and out of 160 land owners only 34 have questioned the acquisition. The learned senior counsel further argued that sections 39 to 42 of the Act nowhere contemplates prior agreement to be signed for acquisition with the Government and in fact, the appellant company on 07.07.2005 addressed a communication to the Principal Secretary to Government, Industry and Commerce Department seeking 165 kanals of land adjoining to the existing land of the company as the company was planning to increase the installed capacity from present capacity of 95300 spindles to about 2,00,000/- spindles within next seven years in a phased manner at a total capital outlay of 325 crores. It was also mentioned that the company undertakes to pay the total cost of acquisition of land and its development charges and also land rent as may be decided under the provisions of para 3.1 (b) of Industrial Policy issued by Government in Govt. Order No. 21-Ind of 2004 and other terms and conditions to be decided by the Government at the time of handing over the possession. The Principal Secretary to Government, Industries and Commerce Department in turn addressed a communication to the Director, Industries and Commerce J&K Government on 11.07.2005 authorizing him to interact with the Management of the appellant company and initiate the proceedings for acquisition of the land required by
