As per the case facts, land acquisition proceedings and the grant of government land for establishing a university were challenged by landowners and through public interest litigation. The High Court ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1144-1146 OF 2011
Anil Agarwal Foundation Etc. Etc. …Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Orissa and Ors. …Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1148-1150 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1152-1154 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1161-1169 OF 2011
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned common judgment and order passed by the
High Court of Orissa dated 16.11.2010 passed in Writ
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 1 of 103
Petition Nos. 10325 of 2008, 12948 of 2008 and 6863 of
2009 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has
allowed the said writ petitions and has quashed the land
acquisition proceedings in question including the
notifications under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act,
1894”) and the awards passed in the land acquisition
proceedings for acquisition of lands in favour of the
appellant – beneficiary company and directed that the
possession of the acquired lands shall be restored to the
respective landowners and on restoration of the
possession to the landowners, they shall refund the
amounts received by them as compensation or otherwise
in respect of their lands. By the impugned common
judgment and order, the High Court has also quashed the
grant of Government Land in favour of the beneficiary
company under Rule 5 of the Government Land
Settlement Rules with a direction to the State Government
to resume the lands which were granted to the beneficiary
company by way of lease, the appellant – the beneficiary
company and others have preferred the present appeals.
2.At the outset, it is required to be noted that before
the High Court, two writ petitions were filed by the original
landowners whose lands have been acquired and one writ
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 2 of 103
petition was filed by way of public interest litigation on
behalf of the small landholders, who could not approach
the Court and also on behalf of the people of the locality.
2.1It is required to be noted that the dispute is with
respect to the acquisition of about 6000 acres of land
belonging to about 6000 families, affecting approximately
30,000 people.
3.The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell
are as under:-
3.1That on 23.06.2006, one Mohit Kumar Rana,
Principal, A.T. Kearney Limited submitted an application
before the State Government stating that M/s. Vedanta
Resources Limited is contemplating to set up a University
in Orissa to impart education in under-graduate and post-
graduate courses in Engineering, Medicine, Management,
General Science and Humanities etc. It was further stated
in the application that the Group had given a presentation
to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Orissa during April, 2006.
That after visiting different sites in Orissa, their team have
selected a site on the outskirt of Puri on the Puri-Konark
marine drive to be the place ideal for establishment of the
University. Therefore, it was, inter alia, prayed that the
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 3 of 103
Government of Orissa should make available 15,000
acres of contiguous land around Nuanai, in the district of
Puri in Bhubneswar-Puri-Konark marine drive. It was also
prayed that the Government of Orissa should also
coordinate the land acquisition process by appointment of
a Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Group prayed that
they require 1500 acres of land for Phase-I to be acquired
by September, 2006 and the balance by December, 2006.
Thereafter, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed
between the Government of Orissa and Vedanta
Foundation on 19.07.2006. The Government of Orissa
confirmed the availability of contiguous land of about 8000
acres and to make endeavour to provide an additional
contiguous land and other facilities as required by the
Foundation.
3.2That a Private Limited Company incorporated in the
name and style of Sterlite Foundation changed its name
to Vedanta Foundation under section 25 of the
Companies Act, 1956 and accordingly fresh Certificate of
Incorporation consequent on change of the name was
issued in July, 2004. After signing of the MOU, necessary
steps were taken by the State Government for allotment
of the land to the Foundation and the Vice President of
the Vedanta Foundation was directed to deposit 20% of
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 4 of 103
the estimated investment cost, which was subsequently
reduced to 10% and necessary direction was issued to
Collector, Puri to obtain administrative approval of the
project from the Higher Education Department and to
produce the approval alongwith the proposal before the
Government.
3.3According to the State, in the meantime, the opinion
of the Law Department was sought on the questions:-
(a) Whether the foundation is an education
foundation? and
(b) Whether the land is required to be acquired for
public purpose?
3.4Thereafter the correspondences took place between
the Law Department and the Revenue and Disaster
Management Department. The Law Department
observed that land can be acquired for the proposed
educational scheme under the Act, 1894 if the appropriate
Department of the Government sponsors a Scheme to
carry out that. Alternatively, the land can be acquired for
an educational scheme sponsored by a Society but with
the prior approval of the Government. So observing, the
Law Department opined that under the Act, 1894, land
can be acquired for public purpose provided Government
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 5 of 103
sponsors to carry out an educational scheme or by a
registered society with prior approval of the Government.
Alternatively, it also opined that the Administrative
Department may verify if acquisition of land can be made
under section 15 of the Orissa Industrial Infrastructural
Development Corporation Act, 1980. After the aforesaid
opinion was received, the Administrative Department was
of the view that the second option to go through IDCO
was not feasible and suggested to consider as to whether
the Higher Education Department will sponsor and own
the project directly and whether it would be done through
a Society to be framed by the Higher Education
Department.
3.5Thereafter, it was decided to explore the alternative
of the Private Company to be converted into a public
company on which, the views of the Law Department was
again sought. The Law Department opined that the land
can be acquired for a 'Public Company' under the Act,
1894 in accordance with Part VII. That Vedanta
Foundation again changed its name to Anil Agarwal
Foundation. On account of the name change, a fresh
Certificate of Incorporation was obtained from the
Registrar of Companies under Section 23(1) of the
Companies Act on 06.09.2006.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 6 of 103
3.6In a meeting of the Board of Directors of Anil
Agarwal Foundation held on 16.10.2006, a resolution was
passed to change the status of the company from a
private company to a public company. Anil Agarwal
Foundation intimated the Department of Higher Education
of the change of name and structure of Vedanta
Foundation on 01.11.2006. On 24.11.2006, Anil Agarwal
Foundation confirmed to the Secretary, Department of
Higher Education that the status of the company had been
changed from a private to a public company. The
Collector, Puri, on the same day, i.e., 24.11.2006,
intimated the Joint Secretary, Revenue Department
regarding the change of status to a public company and
also to the Department of Higher Education for revised
administrative approval for acquisition of land for the
establishment of Vedanta University.
3.7That thereafter notifications under Section 4(1) of
the Act, 1894 were issued between 13.12.2006 to
21.08.2007 for 6917.63 acres. The said notifications inter
alia indicated that the acquisition was being conducted in
terms of Chapter VII of the Act, 1894. That thereafter a
declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was issued
for 5619.05 acres after seeking the objections under
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 7 of 103
Section 5A of the Act, 1894. According to the appellant,
after the awards were declared, the possession was
delivered in respect of 3342 acres of acquired land and
the sponsored 495 acres of Government land and the
compensation of Rs. 41.96 crores was also disbursed.
3.8As a vast tract of lands belonged to the poor, small
farmers and the land so acquired was at a prestigious
location and thousands of families of farmers were
affected by the acquisition of such a vast tract of lands
and that too in favour of a private company, which was
mala fide subsequently converted to public company, the
writ petitions were filed before the High Court challenging
the entire acquisition proceedings / process.
3.9By the impugned judgment and order, the Division
Bench of the High Court has allowed the writ petitions
including the public interest litigation by holding that :-
(i)the acquisition proceedings from the stage of
initiation till the date of purported awards which in
fact and in law not awarded and that the alleged
taking over the possession of the lands is in flagrant
violation of the statutory provision of Sections 4, 5A,
6, 9, 10, 11, 12, (2), 23, 24, read with the provisions
under Part - VII of the Act, 1894.;
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 8 of 103
(ii)the initiation of the acquisition proceedings in
favour of the beneficiary company, on the requisition
made by the Vedanta Foundation by
misrepresenting fact and playing fraud on the State
Government, has vitiated the entire acquisition
proceedings.;
(iii)that the public interest at large is affected and
there is violation of rule of law.;
(iv)the Public Interest Litigation was maintainable,
which was on behalf of small land holders who have
no sustenance to approach this Court to fight
litigation.;
(v)therefore, the acquisition proceedings in its
entirety in respect of persons who have approached
this Court and even who have not approached this
Court are liable be quashed for the reason that there
is flagrant violation of the provisions of the Act,
1894.
3.10Thereafter, the High Court has passed the following
order in terms of paragraph 69, which is as under:-
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 9 of 103
“69. In the result, we allow the writ
petitions, quash the impugned land
acquisition proceedings including the
notification under Sections 4(1) and 6
and the award passed in the Land
Acquisition Proceedings for acquisition
of land in favour of the beneficiary
company and direct that the
possession of the acquired lands shall
be resorted to the respective land
owners irrespective of the fact whether
they have challenged the acquisition of
their lands or not. On restoration of the
possession to the land owners, they
shall refund the amount received by
them as compensation or otherwise in
respect of their lands. We also quash
the grant of Government Land in
favour of the Beneficiary Company
under Rule 5 of the Government Land
Settlement Rules with a direction to the
State Government to resume the lands
which were granted to the beneficiary
company by way of lease. All
concerned including the State
Government, the land owners and
beneficiary company shall implement
the aforesaid direction at an early
date.”
3.11The impugned common judgment and order passed
by the High Court and the operative portion of the order in
paragraph 69 of judgment are the subject matter of the
present appeals.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 10 of 103
4.Shri C. Aryama Sundaram and Shri Rakesh
Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the respective appellants have vehemently submitted that
in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court
has materially erred in quashing and setting aside the
entire acquisition proceedings and that too even with
respect to the landowners whose lands came to be
acquired, did not challenge the acquisition proceedings
and/or even many of them did not raise any objections
under Section 5A of the Act, 1894.
4.1Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective appellants have prayed to consider the
following facts in support of their submissions that the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
setting aside the entire acquisition proceedings is not
warranted:-
(i)It is submitted that notifications under Section 4
of the Act, 1894 came to be issued between
13.12.2006 to 21.08.2007 for 6917.63 acres;
(ii)Declarations under Section 6 of the Act, 1894
were issued for 5619.05 acres, before that the
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 11 of 103
objections under Section 5A of the Act, 1894
were invited;
(iii)Only 13 landowners, who were the owner of
78.89 acres submitted their objections; with
respect to 3 landowners to the extent of 25.61
acres, objections came to be accepted and 10
objections came to be rejected. None of the 10
rejectees had approached any Court with any
grievance.
(iv)That the possession came to be delivered in
favour of the beneficiary in respect of 3342 acres
of acquired land.
(v)Possession was also delivered in respect of 495
acres of Government land.
(vi)It is submitted that therefore, the possession of
total 3837 acres was handed over to the
beneficiary.
(vii)That the beneficiary has already disbursed the
compensation of Rs. 41.96 crores.
(viii)It is submitted that in addition to compensation,
ex-gratia amount of Rs. 25.13 crores was also
disbursed.
(ix)It is submitted that, thus, 3837 persons have
received the compensation as above.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 12 of 103
It is submitted that in view of the above facts and
circumstances, the High Court has materially erred in
setting aside the entire acquisition proceedings.
4.2It is further submitted that there were a total of 9 writ
petitioners before the High Court. One of them was an
objector under Section 5A, however, his land was dropped
from the land acquisition proceedings. He is, therefore,
now only a pro forma party before this Court.
4.2.1 It is submitted that one of the original writ
petitioners was a land loser, but not an objector under
Section 5A. His land was also dropped from the land
acquisition proceedings at the stage of Section 6.
4.2.2Five of the original writ petitioners are land losers,
but not objectors under Section 5A.
4.2.3Two of the writ petitioners are PIL petitioners.
4.3It is submitted that therefore, as on today, there are
a total of 7 land losers before this Court, who hold
approximately 11.52 acres, however, none of them filed
objection under Section 5A. Learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the beneficiary has stated at the
Bar that the appellant is now willing to exclude their land
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 13 of 103
from the acquisition proceedings, even though they did
not file Section 5A objection.
4.4It is further submitted that in fact so far as the PILs
before the High Court are concerned, the same ought not
to have been entertained by the High Court in view of the
earlier dismissal of PIL being Writ Petition (C) No. 6981 of
2008 which was filed by the PIL writ petitioner.
4.5It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants that as observed
hereinabove except few, none of the said land losers
submitted any objections under Section 5A. It is
submitted that as observed and held by this Court in the
case of Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban
and Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 296 , all personal nature
objections are deemed to be waived.
4.6Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case
of V. Chandrasekaran and Anr. Vs. Administrative
Officer and Ors., (2012) 12 SCC 133, it is further
submitted that if the acquisition is challenged by one land
loser, other cannot take advantage of it if he has not filed
objection under Section 5A of the Act, 1894.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 14 of 103
4.7It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the respective appellants that in
the present case the acquisition proceedings have
attained finality, inasmuch as, after the declaration under
Section 6 of the Act, 1894 and after holding inquiry under
Section 11, the awards were declared and most of the
landowners were paid the compensation and even the
possession to the extent of 3342 acres was handed over
to the beneficiary. It is submitted that therefore, when the
acquisition has attained finality, awards have been made,
possession taken and compensation disbursed then
setting aside the entire acquisition proceedings is not
desirable.
4.8It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the beneficiary that though initially
the lands were sought to be acquired by a private
company, however, thereafter the company was
converted into a public limited company after following
due procedure under the provisions of the Companies Act.
He has taken us to the various correspondences and the
orders passed converting the beneficiary company to
public limited company.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 15 of 103
4.9Relying upon those documents, it is vehemently
submitted that therefore at the time when the Section 4
notifications were issued, the beneficiary company was
already converted to a public company. Therefore, the
acquisition in favour of the beneficiary company was
absolutely in consonance with the provisions of the Act,
1894. It is further submitted that the acquisition of the
lands in question in favour of the beneficiary trust/
company was after a detailed consultation and taking into
consideration the object and purpose of the trust /
company in the field of education etc. It is submitted that
the beneficiary company / trust wants and/or desirous of
establishing a very renowned university in the State of
Orissa.
4.10It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the beneficiary company that if the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
is not interfered with by this Court, there shall be serious
and adverse impact in implementing the appellant’s
project.
4.11It is submitted that the appellant – beneficiary has
drawn up a Vision Plan for over 3837 acres of land, which
is currently in their possession. It is submitted that the
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 16 of 103
Vision Plan postulates a University catering to 1,00,000
students and the University would be built in a phased
manner. It is submitted that in Phase I, colleges in the
field of Medicine, Liberal Arts, Science & Technology,
Agriculture and Food Processing and Institute of Design
would be started.
4.12It is submitted that eminent academicians are
already on the advisory/academic board of the project. It
is further submitted that adequate safeguards have been
provided in Section 41 agreement that the land would be
utilized for the University, and in case any portion of the
land is not utilized for the University purpose, then the
said portion reverts to the State Government.
4.13It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the respective appellants that even
after the acquisition of the lands in question, the
rehabilitation measures have been taken as per the policy
of the State Government, which are as under:-
“1.R&R Policy of State Govt. followed
whereunder an R&R Colony of 65.17
acres within the acquired land has
been set apart to accommodate the
230 displaced families. It may be noted
that site of the R&R Colony has been
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 17 of 103
chosen by the displaced families
themselves.
2. The project affected families are
entitled to a preference for
employment in the University.
3. Appellant has agreed to appoint one
graduate from all land losing families
as an employee.
4. Appellant has agreed to engage
landless agriculture labourers as
unskilled construction workers. In the
event the same is not provided, then a
subsistence allowance of Rs. 1500 per
month would be paid to each family
from date of possession to 2010.
5.Appellant has agreed to bear the
expenditure for students from land
losing families to study at DAV School,
Puri.”
4.14It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants that in the present
case, there is a compliance of Part VII of the Act, 1894
and the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963
( hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1963”). It is submitted
that in the present case, Part VII has been complied with
as under:-
“1.Part VII has been complied with as:
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 18 of 103
(i)Section 39/40 consent has been
given by the State Government.
(ii)Enquiry under Section 40(2)/
Rule 4 has been carried out.
(iii)Agreement has been signed by
the Foundation as mandated
under Section 41.
(iv)Section 44B not applicable since
the Appellant is a public
company.”
4.15It is further submitted that insofar as Rules, 1963 are
concerned, it is the case on behalf of the appellant that a
Rule 4 enquiry is relevant only in the case when the land
is identified by the company and not by the State
Government and thereafter an application is made by the
company to acquire the said identified land. It is
submitted that in the present case, the land was not only
identified by the State Government (and, therefore, not by
the appellant beneficiary), but done so after substantially
undertaking the enquiry as envisaged under Rule 4. In
support of his above submission, Shri C. Aryama
Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant trust / beneficiary has prayed to consider the
following dates and events:-
“(i) April 2006- A presentation was made
by Vedanta Resources Ltd. to the
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 19 of 103
Chief Minister of Odisha for setting up
of a University in Orissa. (Note: No
Particular land identified by Vedanta in
this presentation)
(ii)April-June, 2006 - It was known to the
State Govt. that the Vedanta group had
made similar representations to few
other States as well. Since the
proposal presented a huge opportunity
for the State, it started the process of
identifying suitable locations on its
own, under the leadership of its top
officers, i.e. the Chief Secretary, and
carried out a detailed inquiry towards
identifying land keeping in mind the
considerations under Rule 4
(iii)After looking at various options, the
State Govt. finally zeroed in on Puri.
(iv) 16.06.2006- The Office of the Chief
Minister of Orissa convened a meeting
of Secretaries of various departments
in relation to the establishment of the
University. At the meeting, State Govt.
made a detailed presentation to the
Appellant on the land identified by it in
Puri. In the said presentation,
considerations regarding the suitability
of the land, the extent thereof, the
habitation thereunder etc. have been
considered in detail. [Note: this also
shows Compliance with Rule 4(1)(i)
and (iii)]
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 20 of 103
(v)23.06.2006 - Pursuant to the aforesaid
presentation by the State, the
Appellant made independent visits to
the site proposed in the presentation.
On this basis, a letter was written to
the Office of the Chief Minister by AT
Kearney (a Consultant appointed by
Vedanta) stating that Vedanta was
interested in setting up a University in
Puri.
(vi) 26.06.2006- as per direction of the
State Government, the Addl. District
Magistrate, Puri and the Tahasildar,
Puri made further visit to the project
area.
(vii)During the aforesaid exercise:
a) Addl. District Magistrate, Puri
and Secretary, Works also made
aerial survey of the site. [Note:
this also shows Compliance with
Rule 4(1)(i)]
b) Number of informal group
meetings in the village between
the Collector and other State
Govt. officers before the
acquisition proceedings were
initiated. This was done to
discuss various aspects of land
acquisition including suitability of
land, and to appraise the
villagers of the purpose of land
acquisition; [Note: this also
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 21 of 103
shows Compliance with Rule
4(1)(i) and (iii)]
c) Visits were also made for the
purpose of ascertaining that
minimum displacement was
taking place out of the one
various alternative locations
d) Determination was also done to
see that the Appellant is able to
utilize the land, which were
frozen, expeditiously; at various
reviews, the requirement of land
was scaled down to 6000 acres;
[Note: this also shows
Compliance with Rule 4(1)(iv)
and (v)]
e) Exercise was also undertaken to
find out that the land is rain fed;
not irrigated; not much good
quality of agricultural land;
inferior, unproductive and fallow
land. [Note: this also shows
Compliance with Rule 4(1)(vi)]
f)Most of the land oustees of the
project area were contacted
either in meetings by the
Appellants to make negotiations
for payment of reasonable price.
[Note: this also shows
Compliance with Rule 4(1)(ii)]
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 22 of 103
(viii) 19.07.2006 - after being satisfied about
the direct and indirect benefits to be
accrued to the state, an MoU was
signed to establish the proposed
university. [Note: Compliance with
Rule 4(1)(v)], namely, determination to
ensure that the Appellant is able to
utilize the land expeditiously
(ix)09.08.2006- The State Govt. appointed
a Special LAO & special officer for
R&R in order to coordinate the land
acquisition process.
(x)29.11.2006 - the State Government,
upon being satisfied, has accorded
Administrative Approval for the project.
(xi)Minutes of the 7 Core Committee
meetings between 02.09.2006 and
07.02.2008 also record substantial
compliance of Rule 4.”
4.16It is further submitted that therefore, there is a
compliance with Rules 3(1) and 3(2). It is submitted that
even the Rule 4 has been complied with subsequently.
4.17Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
State Government has vehemently submitted that in the
present case, there is a compliance of Sections 4, 5A, 6,
9, 11 and 12 of the Act, 1894. It is prayed to consider the
following dates and events in support of compliance of the
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 23 of 103
State Government with the provisions under the Act,
1894, which are as under:-
“1.Notification under Section 4(1) has
been published in the Official Gazette,
and in two daily newspapers circulating
in that locality and the Collector has
used public notice of the substance of
Notification u/s.4(1) by way of beating
of drums at convenient places in the
locality under Sec.4(1)
2.No provision in the Act for serving
show cause notice to the interested
persons for inviting objections u/s. 5A.
The same is a requirement in
Karnataka because of a State
Amendment to the LA Act, 1894
Unfortunately, the same has been
applied by the High Court vide the
impugned judgment even though
Orissa has no such requirement.
3.13 objection petitions received from 6
villages for an area measuring Ac
78.89. The Spl. Land Acquisition
Officer has given notice to the
objectors for hearing u/s 5-A. Heard
the petitioners. Has forwarded the
objection petitions to Govt. in the
Revenue Department through the
District Collector together with his
report and the record of the
proceedings. In fact, 3 of the 13
objections were allowed (25.61 acres).
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 24 of 103
None of the 10 rejectees approached
any Court with any grievance.
4.State Govt. has given public notice of
declaration under Section 6(2).
5. The Collector has served notices u/s. 9
(1) in the village and to the interested
persons u/s. 9(3) calling upon them to
file claims to compensation, as evident
in the LA records.
6. After making enquiry into their
respective interests, claims to
compensation and objections to the
area, which the interested persons
have stated pursuant to the notices
u/s. 9, the Collector u/s. 11 has passed
Award on the true area of the land, the
compensation allowed and the
apportionment of compensation.
7. In addition to compensation under the
LA Act, 1894, ex-gratia amount of Rs.
1 lakh per acre subject to a minimum
compensation of Rs. 2 lakh acre was
to be paid as approved by the RPDAC
(formed as per the State R&R Policy).
This is in addition to various other
benefits to be provided, which have
been enumerated at (I).B of this
Note at Page 3 above.
8. Collector has given notice of his Award
to such interested persons u/s. 12(2) of
the LA Act 1894, as evident in the LA
records.”
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 25 of 103
4.18It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants that in fact the
project does not fall in any prohibited area. It is beyond
the coastal regulatory zone. The distance of the sea from
the proposed Vedanta University is more than 2000
meters. The Balukhand Wildlife Sanctuary is separated
from the proposed site by a highway / Puri-Konark Marine
Drive. It is submitted that the Sanctuary is on the
seaward side, whereas the proposed site is on the
landward side.
4.19It is submitted that there are a number of private
institutions and organizations which are on the same side
of the highway as the proposed university, along with the
entire village of Beldala with a large population. It is
submitted that Nuanai which flows through the proposed
site is not a river as alleged. It is submitted that it
comprises of two man-made channels (Gabakund Cut
and Siar Cut). It is submitted that the land was acquired
by the State Government for constructing these channels.
The ownership of these two channels continues to lie with
the Water resources Department of the Government of
Orissa. It is submitted that in any event, all
environmental requirements would be scrutinized and
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 26 of 103
looked into by the MOEF while granting environmental
clearance.
4.20Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective appellants have taken us to the findings by the
High Court and their response, which by and large have
been refereed to hereinabove.
4.21Making above submissions, it is prayed to allow the
present appeals.
5.Present appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri
Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respective respondents – original writ petitioners.
5.1It is submitted that the instant case involves
acquisition of about 6000 acres of land belonging to about
6000 families, and thus, involving displacement of
approximately 30,000 people. It is submitted that the
Government of Orissa has showered huge largesse on
the appellant company by acting in a manifestly arbitrary
manner and flouting all the mandatory provisions of the
Act, 1894 and the Rules, 1963 by pre-determining the
acquisition of the concerned land in favour of the
appellant company. It is submitted that the said illegal
action of the Government of Orissa gives rise to sufficient
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 27 of 103
cause for espousal of public interest. It is submitted that
the action of the State in allotting such a huge tracts of
land admeasuring 6000 acres and that too in the prime
location, which was nothing but a clear case of favourism
and arbitrariness, which has been rightly set aside by the
High Court.
5.2It is submitted that the land acquisition proceedings
including the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 and
the awards passed in the land acquisition proceedings for
acquisition of land in favour of the beneficiary company
have rightly been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court by
the impugned judgment and order, which does not
require any interference of this Court in exercise of the
powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
5.3It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the original writ petitioners – original
landowners / land losers that in the present case the land
was identified by the appellant company, and not by the
Government as is evident from the chronology of dates
and events and the Note Sheet of the Principal Secretary
of the Chief Minister. It is submitted that the Note sheet
clearly shows, inter alia, that the appellant company
asked the Government of Orissa to specifically make
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 28 of 103
available for it 15,000 acres of contiguous land around
Nuanai, Puri district in Bhubaneshwar-Puri-Konark by
15.06.2006.
5.4It is submitted that even the relevant clauses in the
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 19.07.2006
also show that the land was identified by the Company
and not by the Government. It is submitted that as per the
MoU dated 19.07.2006, it was Vedanta Foundation that
proposed to set up the university along with a self-
contained township near Puri in Orissa with an estimated
cost of Rs. 15,000 crores. It is submitted that in the said
MoU also there was a refence to the proposed location. It
is submitted that the Government of Orissa just confirmed
the availability of the contiguous land of about 8000 acres.
[Clause 5 of the MoU]
5.5It is submitted that even, the Section 41 agreement
executed between the Government of Orissa and the Anil
Aggarwal Foundation also shows that the land was
identified by the company and not by the Government as
the said agreement says that the Company intended to
establish Vedanta University near Puri and had applied to
the Government of Orissa for the acquisition of the land
described in the schedule thereunder, written and
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 29 of 103
delineated on the map annexed therein whereon the
company intended to establish Vedanta University.
5.6It is further submitted by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners –
original landowners / land losers that the Government of
Orissa, despite knowing fully well that the Vedanta
Foundation had no prior track record in the field of
education, included several clauses in the MoU dated
19.07.2006, providing undue largesse to Vedanta like total
autonomy to Vedanta University and its authorities with
regard to administration, admission, fee structure,
curriculum and faculty selection; proposed university to
have complete immunity from any reservation laws of the
State Government, all assistance in getting regulatory
approvals from UGC, AICTE etc. It is submitted that
even, as per the said MoU, the Government agreed to
provide 4-lane road from Bhubaneshwar city to the
proposed site and the Government of Orissa shall make
the land use/ zoning plan in the 5 km radius from the
university boundary only after Consultation with Vedanta.
It is submitted that the Government also promised to
exempt all state levies/ taxes/ duties namely, viz. VAT,
Works Contract Tax, Stamp Duty and Entry tax on R&D
equipment, educational aids, lab equipment and tools,
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 30 of 103
and construction materials from the date of signing of the
MoU. It is submitted that the Government also promised
to assist the Foundation in obtaining NOC from SPCB and
all clearances from the Central Government. It is
submitted that the Government also promised to assist
the Foundation in arranging rapid EIA and EMP for the
project. It is submitted that the Government also promised
to provide extraordinary huge amounts of electricity and
water. It is submitted that the aforesaid role of the
Government shows clear favourism in favour of a private
trust / company – Vedanta Foundation.
5.7 It is submitted that the Government of Orissa didn't
apply its mind regarding the genuineness of the appellant
company's demand of 10.000 acres for building the
campus. It is submitted that it is to be noted that one of
the largest universities in the world - Stanford University
has lesser contiguous area of around 8,100 acres. It is
submitted that in the present case, the Government of
Orissa confirmed the availability of 8000 acres and
promised to provide additional contiguous land as
required by the appellant Company. It is submitted that at
the relevant time, the Foundation was a private company
with 3 members of a family and limited by guarantee of
Rs. 5,000/-, and no prior track record in education sector.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 31 of 103
It is submitted that while accepting the request by the
Vedanta Foundation, the Government did not consider the
prior track record and did not consider why the Vedanta
group has been repeatedly indicted by various
Governments / authorities / courts/tribunals and agencies
for severe violations of mining laws, environmental laws,
causing pollution, and violation of human rights in its
mining projects in Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Goa and
Karnataka.
5.8Taking us to the observations made by the High
court made in paras 63 to 67 of the impugned judgment, it
is submitted that the High Court has given cogent reasons
and findings to hold that the land acquisition proceedings
were carried out by the Government in a manifestly
arbitrary manner and had defeated the public interest. It
is submitted that therefore, the High Court has rightly
entertained the Public Interest Litigations holding that the
initiation of the acquisition proceedings in favour of the
beneficiary company, on the requisition made by the
Vedanta Foundation by misrepresentation of facts and by
playing fraud on the State Government, which has vitiated
the entire acquisition proceedings. It is submitted that the
High Court has rightly observed and held that the public
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 32 of 103
interest at large is affected and there is violation of rule of
law.
5.9Insofar as the submission on behalf of the appellant
that only 7 people filed section 5A objections out of
approximately 6000 people, who were losing their lands is
concerned, it is submitted that the fact that only 7 people
filed their objections itself shows that the landowners were
either unaware of the land acquisition proceedings and/or
were too weak, poor and disadvantaged and not in a
position to even file objections with the Collector. Relying
upon the decisions of this Court in the case of S.P. Gupta
Vs. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87; Bandhua Mukti
Morcha Vs. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161 and
Public Union for Civil Liberties Vs. State of T.N., (2013)
1 SCC 585, it is submitted that the High Court has rightly
entertained the Public Interest Litigation petitions and has
rightly quashed the entire acquisition proceedings. It is
submitted that the High Court has rightly entertained and
allowed the Public Interest Litigation petitions as by the
acquisition of such a huge tract of land to the extent of
6000 acres, affecting 30,000 people, who were too weak,
poor and disadvantaged, who could not approach the
court for legal redress.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 33 of 103
5.10It is submitted that apart from Public Interest
Litigations, the land losers had also challenged the
acquisition. It is submitted that in the present case, the
High Court has rightly quashed the entire acquisition
proceedings. It has been found that the Hon'ble Courts in
various cases have repeatedly quashed entire
acquisitions where illegalities go to the root of the matter.
It is further submitted that even as rightly observed and
held by the High Court, the entire acquisition proceedings
were suffering from arbitrariness and in Violation of the
Act, 1894 and the statutory Rules in the land acquisition
process.
5.11It is submitted that the appellant is a private
company, and not a public company. It is submitted that
admittedly, the appellant claims that it was a private
company registered under Section 25 limited by
guarantee with a license issued by Central Government.
However, according to the said license itself, any change
to Articles of Association is required to be approved by the
Central Government. It is submitted that herein, the
resolution, dated 23.11.2006, altering the Articles of
Association by the appellant to convert it into a public
company and increasing the members to 7 was not
approved by the Central Government as per the License
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 34 of 103
issued to it under Section 25 and hence, the company
never became a public company. It is submitted that the
aforesaid is evident even from the affidavit filed on behalf
of the Registrar of Companies filed before the High Court.
He has taken us to the relevant paragraphs namely
paragraph Nos. 9, 10 and 12 of the affidavit filed by the
Registrar of Companies dated 15.10.2008 filed before the
High Court. It is further submitted that the reliance of
Vedanta on the letter dated 22.11.2006 from the Ministry
of Company Affairs is not any evidence of the company
becoming a public company. It is submitted that it merely
says that Vedanta's "request for permission under Section
25(8) of the Companies Act 1956 is hereby considered of
conversion of the status of the Company from Private to a
Public Company”. It is submitted that the same was
subject to compliance of the provisions of Sections 23, 31,
189(2) and 192 of the Companies Act, 1956, which are
not complied with at all.
5.12It is submitted that that is why Articles of Association
have not been produced before the Core committee of the
Government without which no one could understand the
nature of the company. It is submitted that the nature of
company, i.e., whether it is public or private depends upon
the nature of holding of shares. It is submitted that if the
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 35 of 103
members hold the shares jointly, then as per the proviso
to Section 3(c) of the Act, 1956, they shall be treated only
as a single member. Further, Section 12(5) of Act, 1956 as
to the accountability of its members could not be
ascertained even for Section 25 registered company.
Accordingly, the members, as can be seen from Board
Meeting minutes, all the Agarwals seem to hold the
company jointly, and therefore, it could only be a private
company.
5.13It is submitted that, however, in appellant's letter
dated 10.02.2011, the appellant admitted that they don't
have any shares and is a company registered on
guarantee under Section 25 of the Act, 1956. It is
submitted that when there being no shares, the pattern of
holding the shares jointly or severally cannot be
ascertained and hence the company could only be a
private company.
5.14It is submitted that even in the agreement executed
on 31.07.2007, the appellant company mentions itself only
as a company but do not state itself to be a public
company. It is submitted that even the appellant failed to
file prospectus or statement in lieu of the same in
Schedule IV as mandated under Section 44 of the Act,
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 36 of 103
1956. It is submitted that Schedule IV warrants disclosure
of interest of each director in the company and share
holding pattern, without which it is not possible to
ascertain the nature of company. It is submitted that as
public company is any company other than a private
company, share holding pattern is a must to examine the
compliance of proviso to Section 3(c) of 1956 Act.
5.15It is submitted that a public company shall, in the
context of Act, 1894, require provision in the Articles of
Association enabling any public to purchase shares to
remove the basis of private company. It is submitted that
the scope of Section 44B should be understood on its
intention. A company constituted by three family members
cannot be legally accepted as a public company if its
members are increased to 7 numbers by adding sons and
daughters. It is submitted that therefore, the phrase
"public company" should be construed by taking into
consideration the scope and purport of Section 44B of the
Act, 1894. It is submitted that that is why an enquiry is
contemplated under Section 40 and the Rules framed
therefor.
5.16It is further submitted that even Clause 13 of the
Section 41 Agreement mandates not to pay more than
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 37 of 103
2/3
rd
, i.e., 66.66% of the compensation worked out which
is in blatant violation of Section 17(3A) (3) which
mandates to pay 80% of the compensation. It is submitted
that even for public purpose, the Act mandates to pay
80% before entering / taking possession, but for private
company, the aforesaid Agreement mandates not to pay
more than 66.67% which is impermissible.
5.17It is submitted that even Section 41 Agreement was
executed on false premise as no such enquiry as
mandated under Section 40 of the Act, 1894 r/w Rules,
1963 was conducted. It is submitted that therefore Section
41 Agreement was a fraudulent exercise of power to give
undue favour to the appellant.
5.18It is further submitted that even otherwise,
admittedly, at the time of execution of MoU with the
Appellant on 19.07.2006, the appellant was a private
company and hence, the proposal ought not to have been
entertained at all but should have been rejected outrightly.
It is submitted that however, the Government showed
undue interest and the entire Government Machinery
worked hastily and acquired the lands using emergency
provision, i.e., Section 17 of the Act. It is submitted that
even on 30.07.2007, the company was not a public
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 38 of 103
company. Therefore, entering into MoU/ Agreement with
the appellant, a private company, which formed the basis
for land acquisition is violative of the statutory bar under
Sections 40(1)(aa) and 40(1)(b) and 44-B and hence, void
ab initio.
5.19It is further submitted that the appellant's reliance on
Collector's letter, dated 25.07.2008, which was after the
Section 6 notification, is untenable. It is submitted that the
inquiry and report of the Collector had to proceed before
the Section 6 notification. It is further submitted that even
no inquiry was conducted under the Rules, 1963, which
has been established and proved from the response by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the RTI query
dated 27.05.2008. It is submitted that in response to the
said RTI query, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has
responded that; "There was no such inquiry under Land
Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963".
5.20It is further submitted that even in the present case,
no Committee / Core Committee was constituted by the
State Government from among the persons notified under
sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 and clauses (i) and (ii) of the Rules.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 39 of 103
5.21It is submitted that in the present case, the 'Core
Committee' constituted by the Department of Higher
Education, Government of Orissa vide the notification
dated 17.08.2007, was setup for the expressly stated
purpose of "coordinating activities relating to lease of
Government land and acquisition of private land,
facilitating rehabilitation of displaced families as per policy,
expediting accreditation from relevant statutory bodies as
UGC AICTE, MCI, BCI etc. enactment of an Act for the
University, facilitating issues of no objection certificate
from State Pollution Control Board and other bodies and
expediting provision of road, water, electricity and
telephone connectivity required for the University, etc." It
is submitted that the scope, composition and purpose for
establishment of the aforesaid Core Committee is
completely different from the scope. composition and
purpose of the Land Acquisition Committee envisaged
under Rule 3 of the Rules, 1963. This is because while
the Land Acquisition Committee is required to be
established for assisting the government in evaluating the
feasibility and desirability of the proposal from a company
for land acquisition, the Core Committee was set out with
the objective of facilitating the land acquisition process
with the Government of Orissa having already pre-
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 40 of 103
determined the feasibility and desirability of the acquisition
in clear contravention of the statutory provisions.
5.22It is submitted that the appellant's argument that
enquiry under Rule 4 of the Rules, 1963 was not
required / relevant in the present case as the land was
identified by the Government and not by the company,
does not hold water. It is submitted that in the present
case, the land had clearly been identified by the appellant
company since the very inception. It is submitted that
even otherwise, whether the land is identified by the
company or the Government, the statutory Rule 4 cannot
be dispensed with at all and the collector is bound to
inquire into all the things mentioned in Rule 4 of the
Rules, 1963, otherwise the whole purpose of the Rules,
1963 and Part VII of the Act, 1894 will be defeated. It is
further submitted that even the declarations under Section
6 of the Act, 1894, for most of the villages were made
prior to the agreement under Section 41 of the Act was
executed. It is submitted that the same is in complete
contravention and breach of Rule 4 (4)(ii) of the Rules,
1963, which provides that no declaration shall be made by
the appropriate Government under Section 6 of the Act
unless the agreement under section 41 of the Act has
been executed by the company. It is submitted that even
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 41 of 103
the same is also in clear violation of Section 39 of the Act,
1894 which stipulates that the provisions of Sections 6 of
the Act, 1894 shall not be put in force in order to acquire
the land for any company unless the Company has
executed the agreement under Section 41 of the Act,
1894. It is submitted that therefore, as rightly observed
and held by the High Court that the entire land acquisition
proceedings is void and hence all consequential
proceedings were also void ab initio.
5.23It is further submitted by the learned counsel that in
the present case, right from the very beginning and from
the time of signing of the MoU, the Government of Orissa
had made its mind that the land will be available to
Vedanta even though the mandatory requirements of Act,
1894 and the Rules, 1963 were yet to be complied with,
which might have led to the possible failure of the
acquisition as the enquiries provided therein are meant to
exclude acquisition of lands if certain mandatory
requirements are not met with.
5.24Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel has heavily
relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of
Devinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 1 SCC 728
and City Montessori School Vs. State of U.P., (2009) 14
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 42 of 103
SCC 253 in support of his submission that as observed
and held by this Court Part VII of the Act, 1894 and the
Rules, 1963 require strict compliance. It is submitted that
in the present case, all the procedures and the
requirements of Part VII of the Act, 1894 and the relevant
Rules, 1963 are not complied with.
5.25It is further submitted by Shri Prashant Bhushan,
learned counsel that in the present case, the inquiry and
the objection under Section 5A of the Act, 1894 have not
been properly complied with and/or adhered to. It is
submitted that it was absolutely critical for the Collector to
have properly heard the objections from the affected
people in accordance with Section 5A in relation to
desirability of the proposed project, irrespective of the
number of objections received and should have made a
report in accordance thereof. It is submitted that in the
present case, the said procedure has not been followed
by the Collector.
5.26It is further submitted that even otherwise the
impugned land acquisition is in violation of environmental
norms. It is submitted that the acquisition of the lands in
question in favour of the beneficiary company, is bad in
law in view of the fact that by Gazette Notification dated
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 43 of 103
23.04.1984 published by the State Government, the
nearby area of the acquired lands has been declared as
Wildlife Sanctuary and two rivers, namely, "Nuanai' &
'Nala' are flowing in the acquired lands according to the
satellite map issued by the Forest Department. It is
submitted that the control of the said rivers will be under
the said private company if the acquisition proceedings
are held to be valid in law thereby the doctrine of public
trust as held by this Court will be violated. It is submitted
that in the case of Common Cause, A Registered
Society, (1999) 6 SCC 667, this Court held that natural
resources such as air, water, forest, lakes, rivers and
wildlife are public properties entrusted to the Government
for their safe and proper use and proper protection and
the doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the
resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather
than to permit their use for private ownership or
commercial purposes. It is submitted that even vast tract
of lands belonging to the State Government including
Gochar lands, on the basis of requisition made for
Vedanta Company, had been de-reserved and divested
from the purpose for which it was reserved and had been
made available for grant in favour of the beneficiary
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 44 of 103
company by way of lease. It is submitted that even the
proper procedure has not been followed for grant of lease.
5.27It is further submitted that even the subsequent
conversion of a private company to public company was
mala fide action/act. It is submitted that the entire
exercise was hurriedly done to convert the appellant
company from private to purportedly public company after
it was already decided to acquire land for it and after the
Law department during acquisition proceedings observed
and opined that the land may be acquired only for a public
company and thereby hurriedly the Articles of Association
and Memorandum of Association were changed in
violation of the conditions of the license granted to the
appellant company and without first informing the
concerned authority of the change, which shows that the
exercise was expressly taken up to defeat the object of
Part VII of Act, 1894. It is further submitted that currently
the possession of land is still with the landowners and
most of whom are agriculturists and their agricultural
lands acquired are the only source of livelihood. It is
submitted that in the present case, as submitted
hereinabove, approximately 6000 families and 30,000
people are likely to be affected, if the land is taken away,
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 45 of 103
then it will cause them great hardship which can never be
compensated in monetary terms.
5.28Making above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss
the present appeals.
6.Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and on going through the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court, it appears that while
quashing and setting aside the entire land acquisition
proceedings, the High Court had in fact identified 15
issues, which are as under:-
Issues
Issue No. 1
Whether the Anil Agarwal Foundation, The Beneficiary
Company, is a public company in terms of the definition
under section 3(1)(IV) of the Companies Act, 1956 and
can the private guarantee limited company be
converted to public company under section 25 of the
Companies Act?
Issue No. 2
Whether the State Government can acquire the lands
in question in favour of the beneficiary company in
exercise of its eminent domain power for the purpose
of establishment of the proposed Vedanta University
(not in existence) in view of Section 44-B of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894?
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 46 of 103
Issue No. 3
Whether the State Government on the requisition of
Vedanta Foundation could have initiated the acquisition
proceedings in favour of the beneficiary company by
issuing notifications under Section 4(1) of the LA Act
without complying with the mandatory provisions of
Section 39, 41 and 42 of the Land Acquisition Act read
with Rules 3(2) and 4 of the Land Acquisition
(Companies) Rules, 1963?
Issue No. 4
(A) Whether the Collector was required to conduct an
inquiry as contemplated under Section 5-A of the Land
Acquisition Act even in the absence of filing objections
to the show cause notice along with preliminary
notification proposing to acquire the lands of the land
owners/interested persons in favour of a beneficiary
company?
and
(B) Whether the Collector was required to submit his
report to the State Govt. in relation to certain matters
as referred to under Clause (1) of Rule-4 as it is
mandatory for further action under Section 6 of the LA
Act, 1894 in view of the fact that the acquisition will
entail serious civil consequences of the owners of the
lands?
Issue No. 5
(A) Whether the owners/ interested persons of the land in
question have waived or acquiesced their rights for not
filing objections to the preliminary notifications?
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 47 of 103
And
(B) Whether there is any delay and latches in these writ
petitions and for that reason they are not entitled to the
relief as prayed in these writ petitions?
Issue No. 6 & 7
6. Whether the Core Committee appointed by the State
Govt. is in compliance with the provision under Section
40, sub section (2) of the LA Act, 1894 and it has
conducted an inquiry and submitted its report to the
State Govt. for its consideration and compliance of the
above provisions of the Act can dispense with the
Rules 3 & 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies)
Rules, 1963 for declaration under Section 6 of the LA
Act?
and
7. Whether the State Government has complied with
Rules 3(2) and 4 of the Rules, 1963 and the Collector
has submitted his report to the State Government and
the same is forwarded to the Committee constituted for
this purpose and whether it has consulted the
Committee before declaring the lands notified &
published under Section 6 notifications?
Issue No. 8 & 9
8. Whether the beneficiary company has executed
Memorandum of Understanding as required under
Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act with the State
Government giving undertaking as provided under sub
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 48 of 103
sections (1), (2) & (3) of the said section of the Act and
the same is published in the official gazette as required
under Section 42 thereof?
And
9. Whether the Memorandum of Understanding dated
19/07/2006 executed by the beneficiary company can
be construed as a valid agreement as provided under
Section 41 of the LA Act for acquiring the lands in
question in favour of the beneficiary company?
Issue No. 10
Whether the Collector has determined approx. amount
of compensation to be awarded and deposited as
required under the provisions and by following the
procedure as provided under Section 23 and 24 of the
LA Act?
Issue no. 11
Whether awards are passed by the Collector in
compliance with Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the LA Act
and award notices as required under Section 12 (2) of
the Act are issued and served upon the
owners/interested persons and thereafter possession
of the lands has been taken by the State Government
under Section 16 of the LA Act and transferred in
favour of the company?
Issue No. 12
(A) Whether the impugned notifications acquiring the
lands in the locality is legal and valid, as certain lands
of them are declared for Wildlife Sanctuary according
to Gazette notification dated 23.4.1984 and two rivers
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 49 of 103
viz. “Nuanai" and "Nala" are flowing in the lands in
question according to satellite map issued by the
Department of Forest, would it affect the ecology and
environment in the locality?
And
(B) If so, whether it amounts to violation of provisions of
Wildlife (Protection) Act; Air (Prevention & Control of
Pollution) Act as well as Water (Prevention & Control
of Pollution) act, and Environment Protection Act of
1986 and for this reason would it affect either the
public interest or public injury or violation of Rule of
Law?
Issue Nos. 13, 14 & 15
13. Whether the PIL must succeed if the question Nos.
12(A) & (B) are answered in favour of the appellants
and for violation of any provisions of Land Acquisition
Act as well as Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules,
1963?
And
14. Whether the acquisition proceedings in its entirety
liable to be quashed, if the petitioners have made out a
case, by exercising judicial review power by this Court?
And
15. What relief petitioners are entitled?
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 50 of 103
7.After elaborate consideration on the aforesaid
issues, the High court has answered the respective 15
questions as under:-
Issues Findings / Answers given
by the High Court
Issue No. 1
Whether the Anil Agarwal
Foundation, The
Beneficiary Company, is
a public company in
terms of the definition
under section 3(1)(IV) of
the Companies Act, 1956
and can the private
guarantee limited
company be converted to
public company under
section 25 of the
Companies Act?
i) As per the details
mentioned in Form No.
32 filed on 19.07.2006,
the Petitioner has only 3
directors on its board
and less than 7
members, which is less
than what is required for
a public limited company
under Section 12 (b) of
the Companies Act,
1956.
ii) The Petitioner had tried
to change its status from
a private to a public
company but the same
was subject to
compliance of Sections
23, 31, 189 (2) and 192
of the Companies Act,
1956. The Petitioner had
not furnished certified
copy of the
memorandum and
articles of association as
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 51 of 103
required under the
provisions of Section 31
(2A) and had therefore
not acquired the status
of a public company.
iii) The Foundation is a
section 25 company,
and therefore not a
public limited company.
Issue No. 2
Whether the State
Government can acquire
the lands in question in
favour of the beneficiary
company in exercise of
its eminent domain power
for the purpose of
establishment of the
proposed Vedanta
University (not in
existence) in view of
Section 44-B of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894?
i) Acquisition of lands for a
private company is not
permissible except for
the purpose mentioned
in Section 40(1)(a) of the
Act as stated under
Section 44-B of the Act.
Therefore, the
acquisition in question is
illegal.
ii) The University in
question is non- existent
as no University has
come into existence
under the University
Grants Commission Act,
1956 or under the Orissa
Universities Act.
iii) The State Government
has promulgated an
Ordinance to establish
an University which is
untenable in law.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 52 of 103
Issue No. 3
Whether the State
Government on the
requisition of Vedanta
Foundation could have
initiated the acquisition
proceedings in favour of
the beneficiary company
by issuing notifications
under Section 4(1) of the
LA Act without complying
with the mandatory
provisions of Section 39,
41 and 42 of the Land
Acquisition Act read with
Rules 3(2) and 4 of the
Land Acquisition
(Companies) Rules,
1963?
i) Section 4(1) notification
in favour of the
beneficiary company
were made on the basis
of a requisition filed by
Vedanta Foundation, but
not Anil Agarwal
Foundation, which is the
beneficiary company.
ii) No enquiry has been
made by the State
Government in terms of
Rule-4 read with Rule 3
of the Land Acquisition
(Companies) Rules,
1963
iii) Acquisition of lands by
publishing Section 4(1)
Notifications in favour of
the beneficiary company
is vitiated in law for the
reason that before
putting the provisions of
Section 4 to 16 and 18
to 37 in order to acquire
land no previous
consent of the State
Government under
Section 39 was there
and such consent shall
not be given unless the
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 53 of 103
company has executed
the agreement under
Section 41 of the Act.
iv) Declaration under
Section 6 has been
made by the State
Government without
consulting the Land
Acquisition Committee
to be constituted under
Rule- 3 of the Land
Acquisition (Companies)
Rules, 1963.
Issue No. 4
(A) Whether the Collector
was required to conduct
an inquiry as
contemplated under
Section 5-A of the Land
Acquisition Act even in
the absence of filing
objections to the show
cause notice along with
preliminary notification
proposing to acquire the
lands of the land
owners/interested
persons in favour of a
beneficiary company?
and
i) The order sheet of the
records maintained by
Collector discloses that
the Collector has not
caused public notice, by
way of beat of drums, of
the substance of such
notification to be given
at convenient places in
the locality.
ii) No notice along with the
preliminary notification
was issued and served
upon either to the
owners/ interested
persons of the acquired
lands as required in law.
Therefore, the question
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 54 of 103
(B) Whether the Collector
was required to submit
his report to the State
Govt. in relation to certain
matters as referred to
under Clause (1) of Rule-
4 as it is mandatory for
further action under
Section 6 of the LA Act,
1894 in view of the fact
that the acquisition will
entail serious civil
consequences of the
owners of the lands?
of filling of objections by
the land owners
interested persons didn't
arise.
iii) The Collector has not
submitted report under
Section 5-A of the Act or
Rule 4 of the Land
Acquisition (Companies)
Rules, 1963.
Issue No. 5
(A) Whether the owners/
interested persons of the
land in question have
waived or acquiesced
their rights for not filing
objections to the
preliminary notifications?
And
(B) Whether there is any
delay and latches in
these writ petitions and
for that reason they are
not entitled to the relief as
prayed in these writ
petitions?
i) Enquiry under Section
5A is mandatory
whether or not the land
owner makes an
objection in writing
ii) This point has not been
answered by the Hon'ble
High Court.
Issue No. 6 & 7 Declaration under
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 55 of 103
6. Whether the Core
Committee appointed by
the State Govt. is in
compliance with the
provision under Section
40, sub section (2) of the
LA Act, 1894 and it has
conducted an inquiry and
submitted its report to the
State Govt. for its
consideration and
compliance of the above
provisions of the Act can
dispense with the Rules 3
& 4 of the Land
Acquisition (Companies)
Rules, 1963 for
declaration under Section
6 of the LA Act?
and
7. Whether the State
Government has
complied with Rules 3(2)
and 4 of the Rules, 1963
and the Collector has
submitted his report to
the State Government
and the same is
Section 6 has been
made by the State
Government without
consulting the Land
Acquisition Committee to
be constituted under
Rule-3 of the Land
Acquisition (Companies)
Rules, 1963.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 56 of 103
forwarded to the
Committee constituted for
this purpose and whether
it has consulted the
Committee before
declaring the lands
notified & published
under Section 6
notifications?
Issue No. 8 & 9
8. Whether the beneficiary
company has executed
Memorandum of
Understanding as
required under Section
41 of the Land Acquisition
Act with the State
Government giving
undertaking as provided
under sub sections (1),
(2) & (3) of the said
section of the Act and the
same is published in the
official gazette as
required under Section
42 thereof?
And
9. Whether the
Memorandum of
Understanding dated
19/07/2006 executed by
i) MOU is not in conformity
with sub sections (1) to
(4A) of Section 41.
ii) There is non-compliance
with Section 39 of the
Act as there is no formal
agreement executed
under Section 41.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 57 of 103
the beneficiary company
can be construed as a
valid agreement as
provided under Section
41 of the LA Act for
acquiring the lands in
question in favour of the
beneficiary company?
Issue No. 10
Whether the Collector
has determined approx.
amount of compensation
to be awarded and
deposited as required
under the provisions and
by following the
procedure as provided
under Section 23 and 24
of the LA Act?
The compensation to be
awarded has been
determined by the
Collector on the basis of
sales statistics secured
from District Sub
Registrar and the value
of the land has been
shown in the sales
statistics has been
treated as the market
value and awarded the
same as compensation.
Issue no. 11
Whether awards are
passed by the Collector
in compliance with
Sections 9, 10 and 11 of
the LA Act and award
notices as required under
Section 12 (2) of the Act
are issued and served
upon the
owners/interested
persons and thereafter
possession of the lands
i) Notices under Sections
9 and 10 were not
issued to the
owners/interested
persons for fling claim
statement to award
compensation is not
done.
ii) Award has not been
communicated to the
land owners as required
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 58 of 103
has been taken by the
State Government under
Section 16 of the LA Act
and transferred in favour
of the company?
under Section 12(2) of
the LA Act to work out
their statutory rights as
provided under Section
18 of the Act.
Issue No. 12
(A) Whether the impugned
notifications acquiring the
lands in the locality is
legal and valid, as certain
lands of them are
declared for Wildlife
Sanctuary according to
Gazette notification dated
23.4.1984 and two rivers
viz. “Nuanai" and "Nala"
are flowing in the lands in
question according to
satellite map issued by
the Department of Forest,
would it affect the
ecology and environment
in the locality?
And
(B) If so, whether it amounts
to violation of provisions
of Wildlife (Protection)
Act; Air (Prevention &
Control of Pollution) Act
as well as Water
(Prevention & Control of
Pollution) act, and
Environment Protection
i) The satellite maps
issued by the
Department of Forest
produced by the
petitioners in the PIL
petitions, clearly shows
that two rivers, namely,
‘Nuanal’ and ‘Nala’ are
flowing in certain lands
acquired in favour of the
beneficiary company.
Hence, the control of the
said rivers will be under
the said private
company. If the
acquisition proceedings
are held to be valid in
law thereby the doctrine
of public trust will be
violated.
ii) Requiring the beneficiary
company to maintain the
flow of the above two
rivers would also affect
the residents of the
locality at large.
ii) The large scale
construction for the
establishment of the
proposed university will
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 59 of 103
Act of 1986 and for this
reason would it affect
either the public interest
or public injury or
violation of Rule of Law?
also adversely affect the
Wildlife Sanctuary, entire
Eco system and the
ecological environment
in the locality.
Issue Nos. 13, 14 & 15
13. Whether the PIL must
succeed if the question
Nos. 12(A) & (B) are
answered in favour of the
appellants and for
violation of any provisions
of Land Acquisition Act as
well as Land Acquisition
(Companies) Rules,
1963?
And
14. Whether the acquisition
proceedings in its entirety
liable to be quashed, if
the petitioners have
made out a case, by
exercising judicial review
power by this Court? And
15. What relief petitioners
are entitled?
i) Acquisition proceedings
from the stage of
initiation till the date of
awards which in fact in
law is not awarded and
the alleged taking over
possession is in
violation of the Land
Acquisition (Companies)
Rules, 1963.
ii) On the requisition made
by the beneficiary
company by
misrepresenting facts
and playing fraud on the
State Government, has
vitiated the entire land
acquisition proceedings.
iii) Apart from public
interest the petitioners
have also pleaded for
the small land owners of
the marginalised section
who have no access to
this Court to fight
litigation.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 60 of 103
iv) Therefore, the
acquisition proceedings
in its entirety is liable to
be quashed, as per the
judgement of the
Supreme Court in HMT
House Building
Cooperative Society
Vs. Syed Khader &
Ors., AIR 1995 SC
2244.
8.We have heard the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respective parties at length.
8.1We have also gone through in detail and considered
the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court quashing and setting aside the entire acquisition
proceedings.
8.2Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the
appellants that the High Court has seriously erred in
quashing and setting aside the entire acquisition
proceedings as only few landowners submitted the
objections under Section 5A of the Act, 1894 and that the
High Court has materially erred in entertaining and
allowing the Public Interest Litigation petitions is
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 61 of 103
concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that in
the present case, the State Government has in utter
disregard to the relevant provisions of the Act, 1894 and
the Rules, 1963 had acquired a huge tract of land to the
extent of approximately 7000 acres of agricultural lands
belonging to the various landowners, namely, 6000
families and thus involving displacement of approximately
30,000 people. It is required to be noted that the lands in
question acquired for the beneficiary foundation /
company / trust was acquired for the proposed university
in a prime location just adjacent to the Wildlife Sanctuary
and from the lands in question acquired, two small rivers
belonging to the State / acquired by the State are passing.
The manner in which the State Government has dealt with
and acquired the agricultural lands belonging to 6000
families and as it in fact favoured the private limited
company, which was subsequently alleged to have been
converted to a public company and that too without
holding any proper inquiry to the need etc., we are of the
opinion that the High Court has rightly entertained the writ
petitions including the Public Interest Litigation petitions
and merely because some persons did not file the
objections under Section 5A and/or accepted a meagre
compensation and/or even accepted the compensation
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 62 of 103
cannot be a ground to set aside the acquisition
proceedings, which as such rightly observed by the High
Court, is vitiated by not following the statutory provisions
under the Act, 1894 as well as the Rules, 1963. It is
required to be noted that as such the entire initiation of
land acquisition proceedings and even right from selection
of the land was by the company – beneficiary company
and not by the State Government. There is an utter non-
compliance of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1963 (which shall be
dealt with hereinbelow). Under the circumstances, it
cannot be said that the High Court has committed any
error in entertaining the writ petitions including the Public
Interest Litigation petitions. Cogent reasons have been
given by the High Court in paragraphs 63 to 67 while
entertaining the public interest litigation petitions and the
writ petitions, which are as under:-
“63. For the reasons stated supra, definitely
the public interest is involved in these writ
petitions filed by the public spirited persons.
It is profitable to know what the apex Court
ruled on the point.
In People's Union for Democratic
Rights Vs. Union of lndia, (1982) 3 SCC
235, the Supreme Court held as under:
"2 ........ We wish to point out
with all the emphasis at our
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 63 of 103
command that public interest
litigation which is a strategic arm of
the legal aid movement and which is
intended to bring justice within the
reach of the poor masses, who
constitute the low visibility area of
humanity, is a totally different kind of
litigation from the ordinary traditional
litigation which is essentially of an
adversary character where there is a
dispute between two litigating parties,
one making claim or seeking relief
against the other and that other
opposing such claim or resisting such
relief. Public interest litigation is
brought before the court not for the
purpose of enforcing the right of one
individual against another as
happens in the case of ordinary
litigation, but it is intended to promote
and vindicate public interest which
demands that violation of
constitutional or legal rights of large
number of people who are poor,
ignorant or in a socially or
economically disadvantaged position
should not go unnoticed and un-
redressed. That would be destructive
of the rule of law which forms one of
the essential elements of public
interest in any democratic form of
Government. The rule of law does not
mean that the protection of the law
must be available only to a fortunate
few or that the law should be allowed
to be prostituted by the vested
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 64 of 103
interests for protecting and upholding
the status quo under the guise of
enforcement of their civil and political
rights. The poor too have civil and
political rights and the rule of law is
meant for them also, thought today it
exists only on paper and not in reality.
If the sugar barons and the alcohol
kings have the fundamental right to
carry on their business and to fatten
their purses by exploiting the
consuming public, have the chamars
belonging to the lowest strata of
society no fundamental right to earn
an honest living through their sweat
and toil? The former can approach
the courts with a formidable army of
distinguished lawyers paid in four or
five figures per day and if their right
to exploit is upheld against the
Government under the label of
fundamental right, the courts are
praised for their boldness and
courage and their independence and
fearlessness and applauded and
acclaimed. But, if the fundamental
right of the poor and helpless victims
of injustice is sought to be enforced
by public interest litigation, the so-
called champions of human rights
frown upon it as waste of time of the
highest court in the land, which,
according to them, should not
engage itself in such small and trifling
matters. Moreover, these self-styled
human rights activists forget that civil
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 65 of 103
and political rights, priceless and
invaluable as they are for freedom
and democracy, simply do not exist
for the vast masses of our people.
Large numbers of men, women and
children who constitute the bulk of
our population are today living a sub-
human existence in conditions of
object poverty; utter grinding poverty
has broken their back and sapped
their moral fiber. They have no faith in
the existing social and economic
system. What civil and political rights
are these poor and deprived sections
of humanity going to enforce? This
was brought out forcibly by W. Paul
Gormseley at the silver jubilee
celebrations of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights at the
Banaras Hindu University :
"Since India is one of
those countries which has
given a pride of place to the
basic human rights and
freedoms in its Constitution in
its Chapter on Fundamental
Rights and on the Directive
Principles of State Policy and
has already completed twenty-
five years of independence, the
question may be raised
whether or not the fundamental
rights enshrined in our
Constitution have any meaning
to the millions of our people to
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 66 of 103
whom food, drinking water,
timely medical facilities and
relief from disease and disaster,
education and job opportunities
still remain unavoidable. We, in
India, should on this occasion
study the human rights /
declared and defined by the
United Nations and compare
them with the rights available in
practice and secured by the law
of our country."
The Only solution for making
civil and political rights meaningful to
these large sections of society would
be to remake the material conditions
and restructure the social and
economic order so that they may be
able to realize the economic, social
and cultural rights. There is indeed
close relationship between civil and
political rights on the one hand and
economic, social and cultural rights
on the other and this relationship is
so obvious that the International
Human Rights Conference in Teheran
called by the General Assembly in
1968 declared in a final proclamation:
"Since human rights and
fundamental' freedoms are
indivisible, the full realization of
civil and political rights without
the enjoyment of economic,
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 67 of 103
social and cultural rights is
impossible."
Of Course, the task of
restricting the social economic order
so that the social and economic
rights become a meaningful reality for
the poor and lowly sections of the
community is one which legitimately
belongs to the legislature and the
executive, but mere initiation of social
and economic rescue programmes
by the executive and the legislature
would not be enough and it is only
through multi-dimensional strategies
including public interest litigation that
these social and economic rescue
programmes can be made effective.
Public interest litigation, as we
conceive it, is essentially a
cooperative or collaborative effort on
the part of the petitioner, the State or
public authority and the court to
secure observance of the
constitutional or legal rights, benefits
and privileges conferred upon the
vulnerable sections of the community
and to reach social justice to them.
The state or public authority against
whom public interest litigation is
brought should be as much
interested in ensuring basic human
rights, constitutional as well as legal,
to those who are in a socially and
economically disadvantaged position,
as the petitioners who brings the
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 68 of 103
public interest litigation before the
court. The State or public authority
which is arrayed as a respondent in
public interest litigation should, in
fact, welcome it, as it would view it an
opportunity to right a wrong or to
redress an injustice done to the poor
and weaker sections of the
community whose welfare is and
must be the prime concern of the
State or the public authority."
In S.P Gupta v. Union of India and
others, AIR 1982 SC 149, the apex Court
held as under:
"We would therefore hold that
any member of public having
sufficient interest can maintain an
action for judicial redress for public
injury arising from breach of public
duty or from violation of some
provision of the Constitution or the
law and seek enforcement of such
public duty and observance of such
constitutional or legal provision. This
is absolutely essential for maintaining
the rule of law, furthering the cause of
justice and accelerating the pace of
realization of the constitutional
objective "Law", as pointed out by
Justice Krishna Iyer in Fertilizer
Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union
of India, AIR 1981 SC 344," is a
social auditor and this audit function
can be put into action when some
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 69 of 103
one with real public interest ignites
the jurisdiction ...... :. Another point
which requires emphasis is that
cases may arise where there is
undoubtedly public injury by the act
or omission of the State or public
authority but such act or omission
also causes a specific legal injury to
an individual or to a specific class or
group of individuals. In such cases, a
member of the public having
sufficient interest can certainly
maintain an action challenging the
legality of such act or omission."
In the case of Janata Dal Vs. H.S.
Chowdhary, reported in AIR 1993 SC 892,
the Supreme Court taking note of the
observations made in the case of S.P. Gupta
(supra) and number of its earlier decisions,
held as under:
"It is thus clear that only a
person acting bona fide having
sufficient interest in the proceeding of
PIL will alone have a locus standi and
can approach the court to wipe out
the tears of the poor and needy,
suffering from violation of their
fundamental rights, but not a person
for personal gain or private profit or
political motive or any oblique
consideration. Similarly, a vexatious
petition under the colour or PIL
brought before the court for
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 70 of 103
vindicating any personal grievance,
deserves rejection at the threshold.
It is depressing to note that on
account of such trumpery
proceedings initiated before the
courts, innumerable days are wasted
which time otherwise could have
been spent for the disposal of cases
of the genuine litigants. Though we
are second to none in fostering and
developing the newly invented
concept of PIL and extending our
Ione arm of sympathy to the poor, the
ignorant. the oppressed and the
needy whose fundamental rights are
infringed and violated and whose
grievance go unnoticed,
unrepresented and unheard; yet we
cannot avoid but express our opinion
that while genuine litigants with
legitimate grievance relating to civil
matters involving properties worth
hundreds of millions of rupees and
criminal cases in which persons
sentenced to death facing gallows
under untold agony and persons
sentenced to life imprisonment and
kept in incarceration for long years,
persons suffering from the undue
delay in service matters, Government
or private persons awaiting the
disposal of tax cases wherein huge
amounts of public revenue or
unauthorized collection of tax
amounts are locked up, detenus
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 71 of 103
expecting their release from the
detention orders etc. etc. are all
standing in a long serpentine queue
for years with the fond hope of
getting into the courts and having
their grievances redressed, the
busybodies, meddlesome interlopers,
wayfarers or officious interveners
having absolutely no public interest
except for personal gain or private
profit either for themselves or as
proxy or others or for any other
extraneous motivation or for glare of
publicity break the queue muffing
their face by wearing the mask of
public interest litigation, and get into
the courts by filing vexatious and
frivolous petitions and thus criminally
waste the valuable time of the courts
and as a result of which the queue
standing outside the doors of the
Court never moves which piquant
situation creates a frustration in the
minds of the genuine litigants and
resultantly they lose faith in the
administration of our judicial system".
(Emphasis added)
Further in a recent decision, in the
case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant
Singh Chaufal & Ors., reported in (2010) 3
SCC 402, the Supreme Court referring to
large number of its earlier decisions held as
under:
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 72 of 103
"33. The High Courts followed
this Court and exercised similar
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The Courts expanded
the meaning of right to life and liberty
guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution. The rule of locus standi
was diluted and the traditional
meaning of "aggrieved persons" was
broadened to provide access to
justice to a very large section of the
society which was otherwise not
getting any benefit from the judicial
system. We would like to term this as
the first phase or the golden era of
the public interest litigation. We would
briefly deal with important cases
decided by this court in the first
phase after broadening the definition
of "aggrieved person"
36. Public interest litigation is
not in the nature of adversarial
litigation but it is a challenge and an
opportunity to the Government and
its officers to make basic human
rights meaningful to the deprived and
vulnerable sections of the community
and to assure them social and
economic justice which is the
signature tune of our constitution.
The Government and its officers must
welcome public interest litigation
because it would provide them an
occasion to examine whether the
poor and the downtrodden are getting
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 73 of 103
their social and economic
entitlements or whether they are
continuing to remain victims of
deception and exploitation at the
hands of strong and powerful
sections of the community and
whether social and economic justice
has become a meaningful reality for
them or it has remained merely a
teasing illusion and a promise of
unreality, so that in case the
complaint in the public interest
litigation is found to be true, they can
in discharge of their constitutional
obligation root out exploitation and
injustice and ensure to the weaker
sections their rights and entitlements.
39. The origin and evolution of
public interest litigation in India
emanated from realization of
constitutional obligation by the
Judiciary towards the vast sections of
the society - the poor and the
marginalized sections of the society.
This jurisdiction has been created
and carved out by the judicial
creatively and craftsmanship.
40. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of
India this Court observed that Article
32 does not merely confer power on
this Court to issue direction, order or
writ for the enforcement of
fundamental rights. Instead, it also
lays a constitutional obligation on this
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 74 of 103
Court to protect the fundamental
rights of the people. The Court
asserted that, in realization of this
constitutional obligation, "it has all
incidental and ancillary power
including the power to forge new
remedies and fashion new strategies
designed to enforce the fundamental
rights". The Court realized that
because of extreme poverty, a large
number of sections of society cannot
approach the court. The fundamental
rights have no meaning for them and
in order to preserve and protect the
fundamental rights of the
marginalized section of the society by
judicial innovation and creativity
stated giving necessary directions
and passing order in the public
interest.
41. The development of public
interest litigation has been an
extremely significant development in
the history of the Indian
jurisprudence. The decisions of the
Supreme Court in the 1970s
loosened the strict locus standi
requirements to permit filing of
petitions on behalf of marginalised
and deprived sections of the society
by public spirited individuals,
institutions and/or bodies. The higher
courts exercised wide powers given
to them under Articles 32 and 226 of
the Constitution. The sort of remedies
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 75 of 103
sought from the Courts in the public
interest litigation goes beyond award
of remedies to the affected
individuals and groups. In suitable
cases, the Courts have also given
guidelines and directions. The Courts
have monitored implementation of
legislation and even formulated
guidelines in the absence of
legislation. If the cases of the
decades of 70s and 80s are
analysed, most of the public interest
litigation cases which were
entertained by the courts are
pertaining to enforcement of
fundamental rights of marginalised
and deprived sections of the society.
64.In view of the clear pronouncement of
law in the aforesaid cases by the Apex Court
this Court has to interfere with the
acquisition proceedings and grant of
Government lands in favour of the
Beneficiary Company to protect the public
interest. Hence we have to answer the
aforesaid points in favour of the petitioner
and against the opposite parties.
65. For the reasons stated supra, the factual
contentions urged by the learned Advocate
General, placing reliance upon the report of
the Additional Secretary to Tourism
Department, is wholly contrary to the
Gazette Notification of 1984 referred to
supra and the Satellite Map issued by the
Forest Department to the petitioners, which
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 76 of 103
is produced for our perusal. Further the legal
contentions urged on behalf of the Company
by Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, learned Senior
Counsel that the petitioners have abused the
process of this Court claiming that they are
public spirited persons, is also untenable in
law for the reason that they have established
the case that interest of the public of the
locality will be affected and also there will be
violation of the Rule of the law if the
acquisition of lands and grant of leasehold
rights in respect of Government lands in
favour of beneficiary Company is held to be
not legal and valid and therefore we have to
hold that there is no abuse of the process of
this Court by the petitioners in approaching
this Court espousing the public cause and
public interest as the act of the state
Government is in contravention of the
Notification issued by the State Government
way back in the year 1984 declaring certain
lands nearby the lands acquired, as Wild life
Sanctuary and the documents produced by
the petitioners to prove the fact that two river
are flowing on the acquired lands. For the
reasons stated supra we are of the view that
the petitioners in the PIL writ petitions have
established that they are bona fide public
spirited persons who are very much
interested in protecting the public interest
and see that the State Government
discharged its responsibilities and
fundamental duties towards the public of the
locality keeping in view ''the doctrine of
public trust" upon the public properties. The
disposal of the earlier writ petition filed by
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 77 of 103
nine persons referred to supra upon which
reliance is placed by the learned Senior
Counsel on behalf of the Company in
support of his contention that the writ
petitioners in the PIL have abused the
process of this Court is not tenable in law, as
this Court has not decided the case on
merits by answering the substantial issues
that arose for its consideration. In the
present writ petitions by urging tenable
grounds they have made out a strong case
for granting the reliefs. If the PIL petitions are
not allowed there will be a continuing wrong
of the State Government and the beneficiary
Company, which would violate the human
rights of the residents of the locality where
the lands are acquired and land owners/
interested persons. They are small holders
of the lands who belong to the Marginalized
sections of the society and therefore they
have no access to the justice for which they
have got constitutional right under Article
39A of the Constitution and hundreds acres
of Government lands are granted in favour of
the company is utter violation of law.
66. For the foregoing reasons, absolutely
there is no substance in the contentions
urged by the learned Senior counsel on
behalf of the Company that there is no public
interest involved in these cases of PIL writ
petitions filed by the petitioners and they
have abused the process of the Court is
misconceived and wholly untenable in law
and the said contention is required to be
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 78 of 103
rejected and the public interested litigation
writ petitions also have to be allowed.
Answer to Point Nos. 14 and 15:
67. We have answered all the points framed
in these petitions against the State
Government and the beneficiary Company
by recording our reasons and we have held
that the acquisition proceedings from the
stage of initiation till the date of purported
awards which in fact and law not awarded
and the alleged taking over the possession
of the lands is in flagrant violation of the
statutory provision of Section 4, 5A, 6, 9, 10,
11, 12, (2), 23, 24, read with the provisions
under Part - VII of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894. We have also answered the points
that arose for our consideration in the Public
interest Litigation holding that the initiation of
the acquisition proceedings in favour of the
beneficiary company, on the requisition
made by the Vedanta Foundation by
misrepresenting fact and playing fraud on
the State Government, has vitiated the entire
acquisition proceedings. We have further
answered that the public interest at large is
affected and there is violation of rule of law.
Therefore, we have also held the writ
petitions filed by the petitioners as public
interest litigation are also required to be
allowed and made observation that the
petitioners in those petitions, apart from
public interest, they have pleaded on behalf
of small land holders who have no
sustenance to approach this Court to fight
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 79 of 103
litigation. Therefore, the acquisition
proceedings in its entirety in respect of
persons who have approached this Court
and even who have not approached this
Court are liable to be quashed for the reason
that there is flagrant violation of the
aforesaid provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act as observed by Supreme Court in the
case of H.M.T House Building Co-operative
Society Vs. Syed Khader & Ors, reported in
AIR 1995 SCC 2244. The Supreme Court,
while answering the legal questions that
arose for consideration, held that prior
approval of the Government is required
under Section 44-A but as the same has not
been followed, the entire acquisition
proceedings was quashed. Further, the
Supreme Court directed in the above
referred case the State Government and the
Society which was in the possession, that
lands shall be resorted to the respective land
owners irrespective of the fact whether they
had challenged the acquisition of their lands
or not and at paragraph 25 of its judgment
has directed as hereunder:
"26. We direct that as a result of
quashing of the land acquisition
proceedings including the notification
as aforesaid, the possession of the
lands shall be restored to the
respective landowners irrespective of
the fact whether they had challenged
the acquisition of their lands or not.
On restoration of the possession to
the landowners they shall refund the
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 80 of 103
amounts received by them as
compensation ·or otherwise in
respect of their lands. The appellant,
the respondents and the State
Government including all authorities/
persons concerned shall implement
the aforesaid directions at an early
date."
We are in complete agreement with the view taken
by the High Court while entertaining the writ petitions and
the Public Interest Litigation petitions.
8.3The grounds on which the High Court has set aside
the entire acquisition proceedings by holding that the
same is vitiated by non-compliance of the relevant
provisions of the Act, 1894, have been referred to and
reproduced hereinabove.
8.4At the outset, it is required to be noted that the
entire acquisition proceedings / proceedings came to be
initiated at the instance of the Vedanta Foundation, which
commenced in the month of April, 2006. Initially, the
company asked the Government of Orissa specifically to
make available for it 15,000 acres of contiguous land
around Nuanai, Puri District in Bhubaneshwar-Puri-
Konark by 15.06.2006. The process for identifying the
suitable locations was by the company. Even from the
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 81 of 103
presentation made to the Chief Minister at the relevant
time and the relevant clauses of MoU dated 19.07.2006
and even the Section 41 agreement executed between
the Government of Orissa and the Anil Agarwal
Foundation, it can be seen that the land was identified by
the company and not by the Government of Orissa. The
same has been dealt with and considered by the High
Court in extenso.
8.5At this stage, it is required to be noted that initiation
of the acquisition proceedings was by the Vedanta
Foundation and thereafter by the Anil Agarwal Foundation,
which admittedly at the relevant time and as on
19.07.2006 was a private company having three Directors
on its Board and less than seven members. It is the case
on behalf of the appellants that as subsequently the Anil
Agarwal Foundation, which at the relevant time was a
private company was converted to public company as on
13.12.2006 namely, viz., the date when the first Section
4(1) notification was issued and the relevant date for
consideration would be 13.12.2006 has no substance and
cannot be accepted. As observed hereinabove, the
initiation of the proceedings to acquire the identified lands,
identified by the appellant company was in the month of
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 82 of 103
April/June, 2006, which was followed by the MoU dated
19.07.2006. Therefore, the relevant date for
consideration would be 19.07.2006 and not 13.12.2006 as
sought to be contended on behalf of the appellants.
8.6At this stage, it is required to be noted that even
otherwise the subsequent alleged conversion from private
company to public company was an attempt to get out of
the statutory provision under the Act, 1894. The Law
Department specifically observed that the land cannot be
acquired by private company for the purposes for which
the lands were sought to be acquired, only thereafter the
appellants changed the status of the company from
private company to public company. The aforesaid was a
mala fide exercise on the part of the appellants.
8.7It is further required to be noted that when the
appellant tried to change its status from private to public
company, the same was subject to compliance of
Sections 23, 31, 189(2) and 192 of the Companies Act,
1956. As observed and the findings recorded by the High
Court and even from the RTI query, it is clear that the
appellant did not furnish the certified copy of the Articles
of Association (as amended) as required under the
provision of Section 31(2A). It is the case on behalf of the
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 83 of 103
appellant that the appellant successfully converted into
the public company on 23.11.2006 and it increased
number of members from 3 to 7 and in terms of Section
44 of the Companies Act, 1956, it amended its Articles of
Association to delete the restriction on free transferability
of the shares and the same has been acknowledged by
the Registrar of Companies (ROC) by acknowledgment
dated 21.02.2007 and 03.03.2011 is concerned, it is
required to be noted and as observed hereinabove the
relevant date for consideration would be June, 2006 and
in any case 19.07.2006 when the MoU was entered into.
Even the subsequent acknowledgment by the ROC was
on 21.02.2007 and 03.03.2011 even much after Section
4(1) notification. Therefore, as rightly observed and held
by the High Court legally, the appellant was not converted
to public company, which as such was a Section 25
company and therefore, not a public company. At this
stage, Section 44B of the Act, 1894 is required to be
referred to, which reads as under:-
“44B. Land not to be acquired under
this Part except for certain purpose for
private companies other than
Government companies. - Notwithstanding
anything contained in this Act, no land shall
be acquired under this Part, except for the
purpose mentioned in clause (a) of sub-
section (1) of section 40, for a private
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 84 of 103
company, which is not a Government
company.
Explanation. - "Private company" and
"Government company" shall have the
meaning respectively assigned to them in
the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956).”
8.8As per Section 44B of the Act, 1894,
notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, no land
shall be acquired under Part VII, except for the purpose
mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 40,
for a private company which is not a Government
company. As per the Explanation, a “private company”
shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Companies
Act, 1956. As per Section 40(1) read with Section 39, a
previous consent of appropriate Government and
execution of the agreement is necessary (Section 39) and
which shall not be given unless the appropriate
Government be satisfied, either on the report of the
Collector under Section 5A, sub-section (2) or by an
enquiry held provided that the purpose of the acquisition
is to obtain the land for the erection of dwelling-houses for
workmen employed by the company or for the provision of
amenities directly connected therewith. Sections 39 and
40 reads as under:-
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 85 of 103
“39. Previous consent of appropriate
Government and execution of agreement
necessary. - The provisions of sections 6 to
16 (both inclusive) and sections 18 to 37
(both inclusive) shall not be put in force in
order to acquire land for any company under
this Part, unless with the previous consent of
the appropriate Government, not unless the
Company shall have executed the
agreement hereinafter mentioned.
40. Previous enquiry. - (1) Such
consent shall not be given unless the
appropriate Government be satisfied, either
on the report of the Collector under section
5A, sub-section (2), or by an enquiry held as
hereinafter provided, -
(a) that the purpose of the
acquisition is to obtain land for the
erection of dwelling houses for
workmen employed by the Company
or for the provision of amenities
directly connected therewith, or
(aa) that such acquisition is
needed for the construction of some
building or work for a Company which
is engaged or is taking steps for
engaging itself in any industry or
work which is for a public purpose, or
(b) that such acquisition is
needed for the construction of some
work, and that such work is likely to
prove useful to the public.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 86 of 103
(2) Such enquiry shall be held by such
officer and at such time and place as the
appropriate Government shall appoint.
(3) Such officer may summon and
enforce the attendance of witnesses and
compel the production of documents by the
same means and, as far as possible, in the
same manner as is provided by the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) in the case
of a Civil Court.”
8.9Thus, at the relevant time, when the company was a
private company, in view of the bar under Section 44-B,
the lands in question could not have been sought to be
acquired / acquired by the appellant company de hors
Section 44B read with Section 40(1)(a) of the Act, 1894.
Therefore, the High Court has rightly held that the
acquisition was illegal on the aforesaid ground.
8.10At this stage, it is required to be noted that even at
the relevant time, the University in question was/is non-
existent as no university has come into existence under
the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 nor under the
Orrisa Universities Act. The case on behalf of the
appellant that the State legislature has already passed a
bill to establish the university is neither here nor there as
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 87 of 103
even as per the appellant’s response, the same is
pending assent of the Governor.
8.11Even the High Court has given specific findings on
Issue No. 3 that the entire acquisition proceedings in
favour of the beneficiary company by issuing a notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act were without complying with
the mandatory provisions of Sections 39, 40 and 41 of the
Act, 1894 read with Rules 3(2) and (4) of the Rules, 1963.
Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules, 1963 are as under:-
“3. Land Acquisition Committee. -
(1) For the purpose of advising the
appropriate Government in relation to
acquisition of land under Part VII of the Act,
the appropriate Government shall, by
notification in the Official Gazette, constitute
a Committee to be called the Land
Acquisition Committee.
(2) The Committee shall consist of -
(i) The Secretaries to the
Government of the Departments of
Revenue, Agriculture and Industries
or such other officers of each of the
said Departments as the appropriate
Government may appoint; and
(ii) such other members as the
appropriate Government may
appoint, for such term as that
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 88 of 103
Government may, by order specify,
and
(iii) the Secretary to the Department
or any officer nominated by him
dealing with the purposes for which
the company proposes to acquire the
land.
(3) The appropriate Government shall
appoint one of the members of the
Committee to be its Chairman.
(4) The Committee shall regulate its
own procedure.
(5) It shall be duty of the Committee to
advise the appropriate Government on all
matters relating to or arising out of
acquisition of land under Part VII of the Act,
on which it is consulted and to tender its
advice within one month from the date on
which it is consulted :
Provided that the appropriate
Government may on a request being made
in this behalf by the Committee and for
sufficient reasons extend the said period to a
further period not exceeding two months.
4. Appropriate Government to be
satisfied with regard to certain matters
before initiating acquisition
proceedings. - (1) Whenever a Company
makes an application to the appropriate
Government for acquisition of any land, that
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 89 of 103
Government shall direct the Collector to
submit a report to it on the following matters,
namely :-
(i) that the Company has made its
best endeavour to find out lands in
the locality suitable for the purpose of
the acquisition;
(ii) that the Company has made all
reasonable efforts to get such lands
by negotiation with the persons
interested therein on payment of
reasonable price and such efforts
have failed;
(iii) that the land proposed to be
acquired is suitable for the purpose;
(iv) that the area of land proposed to
be acquired is not excessive;
(v) that the Company is in a position
to utilise the land expeditiously; and
(vi) where the land proposed to be
acquired is good agricultural land,
that no alternative suitable site can
be found so as to avoid acquisition of
that land.
(2) The Collector shall, after giving the
Company a reasonable opportunity to make
any representation in this behalf, hold an
enquiry into the matters referred to in sub-
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 90 of 103
rule (1) and while holding such enquiry he
shall, -
(i) in any case where the land
proposed to be acquired is
agricultural land, consult the Senior
Agricultural Officer of the district
whether or not such land is good
agricultural land;
(ii) determine, having regard to the
provisions of sections 23 and 24 of
the Act, the approximate amount of
compensation likely to be payable in
respect of the land which, in the
opinion of the Collector, should be
acquired for the Company; and
(iii) ascertain whether the Company
offered a reasonable price (not being
less than the compensation so
determined), to the persons
interested in the land proposed to be
acquired.
Explanation. - For the purpose of this
rule "good agricultural land" means any land
which, considering the level of agricultural
production and the crop pattern of the area
in which it is situated, is of average or above
average productivity and includes a garden
or grove land.
(3) As soon as may be after holding
the enquiry under sub-rule (2), the Collector
shall submit a report to the appropriate
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 91 of 103
Government and a copy of the same shall be
forwarded by that Government to the
Committee.
(4) No declaration shall be made by
the appropriate Government under section 6
of the Act unless -
(i) the appropriate Government has
consulted the Committee and has
considered the report submitted
under this rule and the report, if any,
submitted under section 5-A of the
Act; and
(ii) the agreement under section 41 of
the Act has been executed by the
Company.”
8.12At the relevant time, there was no Section 41
agreement at all. Even no inquiry was made by the State
Government in terms of Rule 4 read with Rule 3 of the
Rules, 1963. Declaration under Section 6 could not have
been issued by the State Government without consulting
the Land Acquisition Committee to be constituted under
Rule 3 of the Rules, 1963. Constituting the Core
Committee by the State Government, which was to
coordinate the entire acquisition cannot be said to be
constituting the Land Acquisition Committee as required
under Rule 3. The object and purpose of constituting the
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 92 of 103
Land Acquisition Committee under Rule 3 is to advise the
appropriate Government on all matters relating to or
arising out of acquisition of land under Part VII of the Act,
1894 on which it is consulted and to tender its advise.
Therefore, on this ground also the land acquisition
proceedings have been vitiated.
8.13There is a non-compliance of mandatory
requirement under Rule 4 of the Rules, 1963. Before
initiating land acquisition proceedings for the company,
the Government shall direct the Collector to submit a
report to it on the mattes mentioned in Rule 4 including
which are:-
“(i) that the Company has made its best
endeavour to find out lands in the locality
suitable for the purpose of the acquisition;
(ii) that the Company has made all
reasonable efforts to get such lands by
negotiation with the persons interested
therein on payment of reasonable price and
such efforts have failed;
(iii) that the land proposed to be acquired is
suitable for the purpose;
(iv) that the area of land proposed to be
acquired is not excessive;
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 93 of 103
(v) that the Company is in a position to utilise
the land expeditiously; and
(vi) where the land proposed to be acquired
is good agricultural land, that no alternative
suitable site can be found so as to avoid
acquisition of that land.”
8.14As per Rule 4(2)(i) in any case where the land
proposed to be acquired is agricultural lands, the Collector
is required to consult the Senior Agricultural Officer of the
District whether or not such land is good agricultural land.
The Collector is also required to satisfy and determine
having regard to the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of
the Act, the approximate amount of compensation likely to
be payable in respect of the land, which, in the opinion of
the Collector, should be acquired for the company.
8.15From the material on record, the High Court has
given the specific findings that there is a non-compliance
of mandatory provisions under Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules,
1963 and therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings for
the beneficiary company has been vitiated and there are
checks and balances and certain mandatory procedures
and requirements are to be satisfied, more particularly,
when the lands are to be acquired for the company, the
same have to be adhered to and non-consideration of the
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 94 of 103
relevant aspects, which are mandatory to be considered
under Rule 4 would vitiate the entire acquisition
proceedings as the subjective satisfaction by the State
Government has been vitiated on non-consideration of the
relevant aspects, more particularly, the aspects mentioned
in Rule 4.
8.16Even there is a specific finding recorded by the High
Court that the beneficiary company has not executed the
MoU as required under Section 41 of the Act that the
State Government even undertaking as provided in sub-
sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 41. While ordering so,
in paragraph 53, the High Court has observed as under:-
“53. Further as could be seen from the
original records of the State Government
that issuance of the preliminary notifications
and obtaining agreements from the Vedanta
Foundation and the beneficiary company are
also bad in law for the reason that we have
answered point no. 1 holding that the
beneficiary company is not a public
company; it is a private company limited by
guarantee. Further acquisition of lands in its
private company limited by guarantee.
Further acquisition of lands in its favour is
permissible only in respect of the purpose of
erection of dwelling houses for workmen
employed by the company or for the
provision amenities directly connected
therewith.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 95 of 103
The MOU dated 19.7.2006 executed
by Vedanta Company in favour of the State
Government was before publishing the
preliminary notifications in respect of the
acquired lands. On the basis of the said
MOU preliminary notification dated
13.12.2006 to 22.12.2006 were published.
Therefore, the said agreement was not
executed by the beneficiary company in
favour of the State Government for
publishing section 4(1) notifications by giving
previous consent by it as provided under
section 39 of the LA.Act to put the provisions
of sections 4 to 16 (both inclusive) and
section 18 to 37 in force. Therefore, there is
no valid agreement before the State
Government to exercise the statutory power
and grant previous consent for publishing
the preliminary notification. For this reason,
publication of the preliminary notifications on
the basis of the said MOU executed by
Vedanta Company does not enure to the
benefit of the beneficiary company.
Therefore, the said agreement is not valid as
required under section 39 read with section
41 of the LA.Act and, therefore, acquisition
of lands by publishing section 4 (1)
notification in favour of the beneficiary
company is vitiated in law for the reason that
before putting the provisions of section 4 to
16 and 18 to 37 in order to acquire land in
favour of the beneficiary company, no
previous consent of the State Government
was there and such consent also shall not
be given unless the company has executed
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 96 of 103
the agreement in terms of section 41 of the
LA.Act. Therefore, the agreement is not only
not in conformity with sub-sections (1) to (4)
and (4A) of section 41, but the same is not
legal and valid for the reason that much prior
to the said agreement, preliminary
notification were published and thereafter
final notifications were published which are
not permissible in law. Therefore, the same
is in contravention of section 39 of the Act.”
8.17The most important aspect, which is required to be
considered is the non-application of mind by the State
Government on environmental aspects and passing of two
rivers from the acquired lands in question. It is not in
dispute that from the lands in question two rivers namely
‘Nuanai’ and ‘Nala’ are flowing, which as such were
acquired by the State Government. How the maintenance
of the rivers etc. can be handed over to the beneficiary
company. If the lands in question are continued to be
acquired by the beneficiary company, the control of the
rivers would be with the said private company, which
would violate the Doctrine of Public Trust. Even requiring
the beneficiary company to maintain the flow of above two
rivers may also affect the residents of the locality at large.
8.18It is also required to be noted that just across the
road, there is a Wildlife Sanctuary, which is just adjacent
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 97 of 103
across the road to the proposed university and the lands
acquired. Therefore, the large-scale construction for the
establishment of the proposed university as observed by
the High Court will also adversely affect the Wildlife
Sanctuary, entire Eco system and the ecological
environment in the locality. It is a duty of the State to
protect the Wildlife Sanctuary and it may affect the entire
Eco system and the ecological environment in the locality.
It is also required to be noted that even the distance of the
sea from the proposed Vedanta University is
approximately 2000 meters. Merely because the
Balukhand Wildlife Sanctuary is separated from the
proposed site by a highway – Puri-Konark Marine Drive,
cannot be a ground to acquire the huge lands for the
proposed university and as rightly observed by the High
Court, the same will adversely affect the Wildlife
Sanctuary and the entire Eco system and the ecological
environment in the locality. The aforesaid aspects has not
at all been considered by the State Government and/or
the Collector and/or the appropriate authority even while
considering the proposal and/or even the objections under
Section 5A of the Act, 1894.
8.19Even otherwise, there is a non-application on the
part of the State Government on the requirement of the
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 98 of 103
lands by the beneficiary company. It is required to be
noted that the lands were proposed to be acquired at the
instance of one foundation / company and the State
Government was dealing with the lands belonging to the
agricultural landowners. It is required to be noted that the
Government is holding a public trust and has to deal with
the lands belonging to private landowners, more
particularly, agricultural landowners in accordance with
law. The State Government could not have considered
the proposal from only one beneficiary/trust. There may
be other public trusts / companies, who might be
interested in establishing such university. Even no proper
inquiry seems to have been initiated by the Government /
Collector while considering the proposal by the beneficiary
company. It is required to be noted that initially, 15,000
acres of the agricultural lands was sought to be acquired
for the proposed university. Ultimately, approximately,
8000 acres of the land belonging to the private
landowners / agricultural landowners came to be
acquired. The State Government has also handed over
the possession of approximately 495 acres of land
belonging to the State Government including the Gochar
Lands etc., which could have been used for the other
public purpose and even for the Gochar Lands also.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 99 of 103
8.20From the material on record, it appears that undue
benefits were proposed / in fact offered and given to the
beneficiary company providing undue largesse like:-
(i)total autonomy to Vedanta University and its
authorities with regard to administration,
admission, fee structure, curriculum and faculty
selection;
(ii)proposed university to have complete immunity
from any reservation laws of the State
Government;
(iii)all assistance in getting regulatory approvals
from UGC, AICTE etc.;
(iv)the Government agreed to provide 4-lane road
from Bhubaneshwar city to the proposed site;
(v)in the agreement, the Government also agreed to
make the land use/ zoning plan in the 5 km
radius from the university boundary only after
Consultation with Vedanta;
(vi)the Government also promised to exempt all
state levies/ taxes/ duties namely, viz. VAT,
Works Contract Tax, Stamp Duty and Entry tax
on R&D equipment, educational aids, lab
equipment and tools, and construction materials
from the date of signing of the MoU;
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 100 of 103
(vii)the Government also promised to assist the
Foundation in obtaining NOC from SPCB and all
clearances from the Central Government;
(viii)the Government also promised to assist the
Foundation in arranging rapid EIA and EMP for
the project;
(ix)the Government also promised to provide
extraordinary huge amounts of electricity and
water.
8.21It is not appreciable why the Government offered
such an undue favour in favour of one trust/ company.
Thus, the entire acquisition proceedings and the benefits,
which were proposed by the State Government were
vitiated by favourism and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
8.22From the aforesaid and the detailed findings
recorded by the High Court reproduced hereinabove, we
are more than satisfied that the High Court has not
committed any error and in fact the High Court was
justified in setting aside the entire acquisition proceedings,
which has been vitiated by non-compliance of the
statutory provisions under the Act, 1894 and the Rules,
1963 and vitiated by mala fides and favourism and is a
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 101 of 103
clear case of the non-application of mind on relevant
aspects. We are in complete agreement with the view
taken by the High Court.
8.23The submission on behalf of the appellant that now
the appellant is ready to confine to acquisition of 3837
acres of land only and that they are now willing to exclude
the lands belonging to 7 land losers, who have filed the
writ petitions, from the acquisition proceedings and/or the
landowners before this Court and/or the land belonging to
the land losers before this Court is concerned, it will
strengthen our finding that there was no proper inquiry
with respect to the requirement. As observed
hereinabove, initially, 15,000 acres was proposed to be
acquired, which is now reduced to 3837 acres. Meaning
thereby, the proposal was for exaggerated demand. This
was mala fide intention on the part of the appellant
company / foundation. At this stage, it is required to be
noted that it was the specific case on behalf of the original
writ petitioners, more particularly, the Public Interest
Litigation petitioners that if such a huge land would have
been acquired and/or even the lands, which are already
acquired, would be misused and/or put to use for some
other purpose like mining activities etc. At this stage, it is
required to be noted that the lands to be acquired are
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 102 of 103
agricultural lands belonging to 6000 families and their only
source of livelihood is on the agricultural lands, which
cannot be compensated in terms of money, therefore, the
proposal made now has to be rejected outright.
9.In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, all these appeals fail and the same deserve to be
dismissed and are accordingly dismissed with costs,
which is quantified at Rs. 5 lakhs to be deposited by the
appellant – beneficiary company – Anil Agarwal
Foundation with the Registrar of this Court within a period
of six weeks from today and on such deposit, the same be
transferred to the Orissa State Legal Services Authority.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
APRIL 12, 2023. [KRISHNA MURARI]
Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011
Page 103 of 103
Legal Notes
Add a Note....