NDLI: Anil Agarwal Foundation Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Orissa and Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Acquisition Proceedings Land Acquisition Act 1894 Allotment of land To Private Company For setting up of University Undue Favour to Company
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss. 4(1), 6, 44B – LandAcquisition Rules, 1963 – rr. 3 & 4 – Acquisition Proceedings –Allotment of land – To Private Company – For setting up ofUniversity – Undue Favour to Company – Non-compliance ofMandatory Provisions – Doctrine of Public Trust – Violation of –Appellant, a private company at that time, made a representation tothe Govt to grant land to set up a University – Necessary steps weretaken by the Govt for allotment of land – However, the LawDepartment opined that the land can be acquired only for a PublicCompany under the 1894 Act – Pursuant to which, appellantcompany passed resolution to change the status from PrivateCompany to Public Company and intimated the same to Govt. –Thereafter, Land Acquisition notifications u/s 4(1) of the Act wereissued for 6917.63 acres – Writ Petition was filed in the High Courtchallenging the entire acquisition proceedings – Division Bench ofHigh Court allowed the Petition and held that the entire proceedingwas in flagrant violation of the statutory provisions of the Act –High Court quashed the acquisition proceedings by observing thatthe public interest was affected and there was violation of rule oflaw – On appeal, held: Initiation of the acquisition proceedingswas by the Vedanta Foundation and thereafter by the Anil AgarwalFoundation, which admittedly at the relevant time and as on19.07.2006 was a private company – It was the case of appellantthat it successfully converted into the public company on 23.11.2006and it increased number of members from 3 to 7 and in terms ofSection 44 of the Companies Act, 1956, it amended its Articles ofAssociation to delete the restriction on free transferability of theshares and the same has been acknowledged by the Registrar ofCompanies (ROC) by acknowledgment dated 21.02.2007 and03.03.2011 – However, even the subsequent acknowledgment by the Registrar of Companies on 21.02.2007 and 03.03.2011 wasmuch after s.4(1) notification which were issued between 13.12.2006to 21.08.2007 – Therefore, legally, the appellant was not convertedto public company at the relevant time – At the relevant time, whenthe company was a private company, in view of the bar under s.44-B of the 1894 Act, the lands in question could not have been soughtto be acquired by the appellant company – Subsequent conversionfrom private company to public company was an attempt to get outof the statutory provision under the Act, 1894, which is mala fideexercise on the part of the appellants – Even there was noncomplianceof mandatory provisions under rr.3 and 4 of the Rules,1963 and therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings for thebeneficiary company was vitiated – There was also non-applicationof mind by the State Government on environmental aspects andpassing of two rivers from the acquired lands in question – How themaintenance of the rivers etc. can be handed over to the beneficiarycompany – If the lands in question are continued to be acquired bythe beneficiary company, the control of the rivers would be with thesaid private company, which would violate the Doctrine of PublicTrust – Further, there is a Wildlife Sanctuary, just adjacent acrossthe road to the proposed university and the lands acquired –Therefore, large-scale construction for establishment of the proposeduniversity as observed by the High Court will also adversely affectthe Wildlife Sanctuary, entire Eco system and the ecologicalenvironment in the locality – Even otherwise, there is non-applicationon part of the State Government on the requirement of the lands bythe beneficiary company – From the material on record, it appearsthat undue benefits were proposed / in fact offered and given to thebeneficiary company providing undue largesse – It is not appreciablewhy the Government offered such an undue favour to one trust/company – Thus, the entire acquisition proceedings and the benefits,proposed by the State Government were vitiated by favourism andviolative of Art.14 of the Constitution – High Court was justified insetting aside the entire acquisition proceedings, which was vitiatedby non-compliance of the statutory provisions under the Act, 1894and the Rules, 1963 and also vitiated by mala fides and favourismand is a clear case of the non-application of mind on relevant aspects– Constitution of India – Art. 14.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 361
Petitioner	Anil Agarwal Foundation Etc. Etc.
Respondent	State Of Orissa And Ors.
SCR	[2023] 8 S.C.R. 969
Judgement Date	2023-04-12
Case Number	1144

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Anil Agarwal Foundation Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Orissa and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Udho Dass Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

Bhagwan Das & Ors. Etc. Vs. State of Up & Ors.

Smt. Basavva and Ors. Etc. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, and Ors.

Nawal Singh and Ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. Union of India Etc. Etc.

Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Etc. Vs. Male Pullamma and Ors. Etc.

Kanwar Singh and Ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. Union of India

Jai Parkash and Ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. Union of India

Hukam Chand and Ors. Etc. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. Etc.

Lilawati Agarwal Etc. Vs. The State of Jharkhand Etc.

Anil Agarwal Foundation Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Orissa and Ors.

Anil Agarwal Foundation Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Orissa and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Udho Dass Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

Bhagwan Das & Ors. Etc. Vs. State of Up & Ors.

Smt. Basavva and Ors. Etc. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, and Ors.

Nawal Singh and Ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. Union of India Etc. Etc.

Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Etc. Vs. Male Pullamma and Ors. Etc.

Kanwar Singh and Ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. Union of India

Jai Parkash and Ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. Union of India

Hukam Chand and Ors. Etc. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. Etc.

Lilawati Agarwal Etc. Vs. The State of Jharkhand Etc.

Anil Agarwal Foundation Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Orissa and Ors.