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 proper application of mind and in accordance with legal provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter was done through video conferencing and there was no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality.

2. Heard parties.

3. The instant intra-court appeal is under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the order dated 13.06.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2529 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been allowed by quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 1331 dated 10.10.2002 passed by the Managing Director, Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority as well as the appellate order dated 21.04.2005 passed by the Secretary, Industries, Government of Jharkhand and consequently the order of allotment of the cancelled portion of land to the Respondent No.4 by the Respondent No.3 vide impugned order No. 1021/ADA dated 07.05.2005 has also been set aside.

4. The brief facts of the case which are required to be referred, read as under :-

The Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘AIADA’) allotted 10.00 acres of land in favour of the writ petitioner for processing and supply of milk and milk products to the urban population of Jamshedpur vide letter dated 16.01.1975 as also physical possession of the property was handed over to the authorized representative of Animal Husbandry

Department of the erstwhile State of Bihar. Subsequently, the said property was handed over to the writ petitioner, a multi-State co-operative society, having its activities in the State of Jharkhand and Bihar which is an organization of farmers who are producing milk and milk products in the brand name ‘SUDHA’. The processing capacity of the petitioner unit has increased from 25,000 litres of milk per day in the year 1984 to 1,30,000 litres of milk per day.

The AIADA issued a letter on 12.05.2001 levelling allegation that about 3.00 acres of land is unutilized and there are certain dues which are pending against the writ petitioner. Subsequently, vide letter dated 25.07.2001 some more dues were included. The writ petitioner sought to clear the dues however certain disputes were raised in connection with the calculation of the interest portion.

Subsequently, another letter dated 10.01.2002 was issued by AIADA stating that about 2.00 acres of land are not being utilized by the writ petitioner and show cause was issued as to why the allotment of unutilized land be not cancelled and possession be not taken over by AIADA. Such decision has been taken on the pretext of certain dues lying against the writ petitioner.

The writ petitioner responded vide letter dated 17/21.01.2002 mentioning therein that the unit of the writ petitioner is a growing unit and they have plans to increase the processing capacity of milk from 1,00,000 litres per day to 1,50,000 litres per day and further it was stated therein that there was no additional land available with the writ petitioner.

The Managing Director, AIADA vide impugned order as contained in Memo No. 1331 dated 10.10.2002 found that 1.00 acre of land was unutilized and the writ petitioner was using this piece of land for plantation of trees and treating this 1.00 acre of land as unutilized land, allotment of land to the extent of 1.00 acre, out of 10.00 acres, was cancelled.

The writ petitioner protested the decision of cancellation by filing appeal before the Secretary, Industries Department, Jharkhand but the said appeal has also been dismissed vide order dated 21.04.2005.

Being aggrieved with the impugned orders, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being W.P.(C) No. 2529 of 2005 which has been allowed by quashing and setting aside the order of the Managing Director, AIADA and the appellate order dated 21.04.2005 of the Secretary, Industries Department, Jharkhand respectively against which the present intra-court appeal has been preferred by the AIADA.

5. Mr. V.P.Singh,