Skip to main content

Standing industrial unit cannot be acquired for industrialization: SC

The Supreme Court has scoffed at Haryana's land acquisition policy under which authorities had acquired a fully operational industrial unit and its land for setting up an industrial estate.

A bench of Chief Justice P Sathasivam and Justice Ranjana P Desai quashed acquisition of the land on which the industrial unit was functioning and said, "We are of the view that there is no justification in acquiring a running industrial unit for industrialization of the area."

This happened at Kundli, a stone's throw from Delhi, where the authorities in 2005 acquired the land on which an industrial unit of VKM Katha Industries Ltd had been functioning since 1994. The unit was registered as a small-scale industrial unit with the director, industries department, Haryana, and was manufacturing kattha for various tobacco and non-tobacco products.

On December 21, 2005, Haryana government's industries department issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of certain land in Kundli and Sirsa villages for development of a industrial estate and the land belonging to the company was covered under the said notification.

The company challenged the acquisition but the Punjab and Haryana high court dismissed its writ petition on July 8, 2008. The company's counsel Guru Krishna argued that the industrial unit was running on the date of acquisition, hence it could not have been acquired by the government to set up an industrial estate.

The company showed to the court that the construction at the site in question was of excellent quality and also pointed out that similar units running in the area were left out of the acquisition process.

Justice Sathasivam, authoring the judgment for the bench, said, "On going through the materials placed, we are satisfied that the appellant-company has established that it is a running industrial unit even prior to the notification under the Land Acquisition Act."

Though Haryana's additional advocate general Manjit Singh Dalal pointed out that the acquisition process was carried out in letter and spirit, the bench said, "In other words, even if the government or the authority concerned excludes the land of the appellant-company, there would not be any difficulty in executing the scheme."

Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-21/india/41432732_1_land-acquisition-act-industrial-unit-acquisition-process

Comments

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...