Back
2010 Supreme(UK) 823
2011 (1) UAD 559
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Barin Ghosh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Bist
Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 61 of 2010 WITH
Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 64 of 2010 & Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 69 of 2010
UTTARAKHAND JANTA SANGHARSH MORCHA – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 28.12.2010
In Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 61 of 2010
For the Petitioner:Mr. Avtaar Singh Rawat, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Mr. K.N. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. and Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Adv. General with Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel
For the Respondent No. 3: Mr. Sharad Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Saurabh Bhatia, Adv.
For the Respondent No. 5: Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Sr. Adv with Ms. Puja Banga, Adv.
In Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 64 of 2010
For the Petitioner:Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4: Mr. K.N. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. and Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Adv. General with Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel
For the Respondent No. 7: Mr. Sharad Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Saurabh Bhatia, Adv.
For the Respondent No. 8: Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Sr. Adv with Ms. Puja Banga, Adv.
In Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 69 of 2010
For the Petitioner:Mr. C.K. Sharma, Mr. Ravindra Singh and Mr. D. Mainali, Advocate
For the Respt Nos. 1, 2, 6 & 7 : Mr. K.N. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. and Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Adv. General with Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel
For the Respondent No. 3: Mr. Sharad Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Saurabh Bhatia, Adv.
For the Respondent No. 5: Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Sr. Adv with Ms. Puja Banga, Adv.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Secs. 39, 40, 44-A and 44-B — Purpose and Object of — To ensure that lands are acquired for companies only to achieve public good — And an oblgiation is imposed on the company to continue to use the same for public good, in contradiction to satisfy private greed — It must be kept in mind that when a land is acquired and, thereby, owners of the land are forced to sell their land, that can only be resorted to for achieving a public purpose — For a larger public interest, the land, thus acquired, might be used for some other public purpose — But not for the purpose of fulfilling a private greed. (Paras 27, 32)
(B) Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, Secs. 19 and 32 and Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Secs. 39, 40, 44-A and 44-B — Anything purported to be done under the provisions of the 1985 Act, which is contrary to public interest and immoral to public purpose, cannot be read into the provisions of the 1985 Act — Even if there being no objections to — It is not permissible, on the garb of rehabilitating a sick industrial company, to open the exchequer of a State Gopvernment — Any directions if immoral — Could not be saved either by reason of the provisions contained in Sec. 19 or Sec. 32 of the 1985 Act — Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, not enacted to make an industrialist rich by commercially exploiting land acquired for a public purpose. (Paras 28 & 29)
¼v½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894] /kkjk 39] 40] 44A vkSj 44B dk iz;kstu vkSj mn~ns'; & ;g lqfuf'pr djuk fd dEifu;ksa ds okLrs Hkwfe vtZu dk mn~ns'; dsoy tufgr gS vkSj dEiuh dk ;g nkf;Ro fuf'pr fd;k tkrk gS fd og mldk mi;ksx O;fDrxr ykyp ds foijhr tufgr esa djrh jgs & tc dksbZ Hkwfe vftZr dh tkrh gS rks efLr"d esa ;g /;ku j[kk tkuk visf{kr gS fd HkwLokfe;ksa dks viuh Hkwfe dh fod; djus gsrq ck/; fd;k tkrk gS rks og dsoy tufgr ds iz;kstu dks izkIr fd;s tkus gsrq gh fd;k tkrk gS & fdlh o`gr tufgr ds okLrs vftZr Hkwfe dks iz;qDr fd;k tk ldrk Fkk ijUrq fdlh O;fDrxr ykyp dh iwfrZ ds iz;kstu ds fy, fcYdqy ughaA
¼izLrj 27] 32½
¼c½ chekj vkS|ksfxd dEifu;k¡ ¼fo'ks"k izkfo/kku½ vf/kfu;e] 1985] /kkjk 19 vkSj 32 vkSj Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894] /kkjk 39] 40] 44A vkSj 44B & lu~ 1985 ds vfFkfu;e ds rgr dqN Hkh djus ds iz;kstu ls tks fd tufgr ds fo#) gS] vkSj vuSfrd tufgr dks 1985 vf/kfu;e ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vUrxZr i<+k ugha tk ldrk] pkgs bl ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ vkifRr Hkh ugha gqbZ gks & ,d chekj vkS|ksfxd bdkbZ dh iquLZFkkiuk gsrq fdlh jkT; ljdkj ds jktdks"k dks [kksyk tkuk Lohdk;Z ugha gS & dksbZ Hkh funsZ'k tks vuSfrd gks] dks vf/kfu;e 1985 dh /kkjk 19 vFkok /kkjk 32 ds rgr lqjf{kr ugha j[kk tk ldrk & jksxh vkS|ksfxd dEifu;k¡ ¼fo'ks"k izkfo/kku½ vf/kfu;e dks fdlh vkS|ksxifr dh tufgr esa vftZr Hkwfe dk vkfFkZd 'kks"k.k djds mls /kuh cukus ds mn~ns'; ls vf/kfu;fer ugha fd;k x;k gSA ¼izLrj 28 vkSj 29½
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The land in question was acquired for a public purpose under specific legal provisions, with the obligation to continue its use for public good (!) (!) .
-
The land was transferred to a private company (Citurgia) under agreements that stipulated it could only be used for the purpose specified, and such transfer required prior government sanction (!) (!) .
-
The land was valued without including its true worth, as it was acquired for a public purpose and its transfer or sale was not legally permissible without government approval (!) (!) .
-
The scheme for rehabilitation of the sick industrial company (Citurgia) included provisions for sale or development of surplus land, but such actions were only permissible under specific conditions and with proper authority, which were not adhered to (!) (!) .
-
The actions taken by the government and its officers, including granting permissions and changing land use, were found to be contrary to the law, especially since the land was acquired for public use and could not be exploited privately without proper authorization (!) (!) (!) .
-
The scheme and decisions that allowed Citurgia to commercially exploit the land, including the permission granted by the government and the subsequent notifications, were quashed due to their illegality and breach of the original purpose of land acquisition (!) .
-
The court directed the government to approach the appropriate authority (BIFR) to remove the clause permitting commercial exploitation of the land from the revival scheme and to seek its deletion from the sanctioned scheme (!) (!) .
-
The District Magistrate was ordered to take possession of the land and to permit its use only for the purpose for which it was originally acquired, and to act against any breach of covenants (!) (!) .
-
The government was advised to investigate the conduct of its officers involved in these proceedings, as their actions were deemed to lack public confidence (!) .
-
The writ petitions were disposed of with these orders, emphasizing the importance of adherence to legal provisions governing land acquisition and use for public purposes (!) .
Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or assistance with specific legal questions related to this document.
[Per : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.]
In this Public Interest Litigation, in the form of a writ petition, the petitioner has complained of sinister mode adopted by the State in permitting a limited liability Company to deal with land belonging to the people of the State.
2. The facts of the case, as have come on record, are that on 21st July, 1960, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, granted a license to M/s Nowrosjee Wadia & Sons Pvt. Ltd. to manufacture 3,025 tons of Calcium Carbonate per annum. By an amendment dated 8th December, 1960, the said license permitted establishment of the factory at Rishikesh in the district of Dehradun. M/s Nowrosjee Wadia & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Promoted Sturdia Chemicals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Sturdia”) for the purpose of establishing a factory to take advantage of the said license. Thereupon, a site was selected for establishment of the factory. The land of the site ostensively belonged to Sri Shanti Prapan Sharma, M.L.A., Dehradun, and his younger brother Lalit Mohan Sharma. M/s. Nowrosjee Wadia & Sons. Pvt. Ltd. entered into two agreements; one with Shanti Prapan Sharma and the other with Lalit Mohan Sharma, both dated 29th July, 1960, and thereby, agreed to purchase 34.98 acres of land at Rs. 2,000/- per acre and 15 acres of land at Rs. 1,750/- per acre. Though the said land was claimed by the vendors as Bhumidhari land, sale thereof, pursuant to the said agreements, could not be effected. Accordingly, M/s Nowrosjee Wadia & Sons. Pvt. Ltd. applied for acquisition of the said land.
3. Subsequent thereto, on 19th June, 1961, an agreement was entered into between the Governor of Uttar Pradesh and Sturdia. The agreement made it clear that Sturdia will pay to the State Government, all such sums of moneys as shall be awarded under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “1894 Act”), as compensation, to pay any person or persons, who may be found, on inquiry held under the provisions thereof, to be interested in the said land. By the said agreement, Sturdia agreed to pay, to the State Government, compensation on account of the rights of intermediary (if any), which shall vest in the State Government in pursuance of the provisions of the said Act. The agreement recorded satisfaction of the State Government that the acquisition of the land is needed for the construction of the work, viz., Calcium Carbonate Factory of the Company with its attendant buildings, godowns, stock-yard etc. and dwelling houses for the workmen employed by the Company and the members of its staff and amenities directly connected therewith and that such work is likely to prove useful to the public. The agreement provided, amongst others, as follows :
“...That upon the Company having made all the payments incidental to the acquisition of such land as mentioned in clauses 1, 2 and 3 hereof, the Governor will forthwith, in consideration of the payment of such compensation money and cost of the acquisition, convey and grant to the Company the said land described in Schedule I hereto, to hold the same unto and to the use of the said Company forever, subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth, namely :
(a) that the Company, its successors and assignees will use the said land for the aforesaid purpose and for no other purpose without the previous sanction in writing of the State Government;
(b) ........
(e) that if the said land or any part or parts thereof shall no longer be required by the Company, then the Company will forthwith relinquish and restore the same after removing all buildings and structures to the Governor at a price equal to the amount paid by it under the said Land Acquisition Act (including the amount awarded in respect thereof under section 23(2) of the said Act);
(f) that in the case of a breach by the Company of any of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the Governor shall give a notice of six months to the Company to remedy th
