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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...