NDLI: M/s. M.s.p.l. Limited Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Land Acquisition
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Others
Headnote	Land Acquisition : Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966: ss. 3(1), 1(3) and 28(1) – Land acquisition by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board for two companies, the appellant company and its fully owned subsidiary for setting up an iron ore plant – Issuance of Notification u/ss. 1(3), 3(1) and 28(1) of the 1966 Act for land acquisition – Objections invited from land owners u/s. 28(3) of 1966 Act – Objections duly considered – Thereafter, notifications u/s. 28(4) of 1966 Act was issued for a total area required by the appellant company – Similar notifications were issued for the land required for the subsidiary company – Compensation also determined – Writ Petitions filed seeking quashing of the notifications issued u/s. 28(4) of the 1966 Act for the appellant company and its fully owned subsidiary – More than 90 per cent of the land owners covering 90 per cent of the area acquired accepted the compensation – Only 10 per cent or less of the land owners had filed the said writ petitions – Challenge was also made to the grant u/ss. 1(3) and 3(1) of the 1966 Act – Single Judge dismissed all the petitions filed by land owners – However, the Division Bench quashed the acquisition proceedings for the entire areas which was not even challenged – Also quashed the notifications issued u/ss. 1(3), 3(1) and 28(1) of the 1966 Act – On appeal, held – Division Bench erred in quashing the acquisition proceeding – Karnataka Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2002.Acquisition of land, in absence of environmental clearance – Permissibility of – Plea that two companies did not have any Environmental Clearance, in the absence of which the land could not have been acquired for setting up the plant – Held : No objection can be raised that there is no environmental clearance certificate from the Ministry of Environment and Forest as the same has already been issued on 23.09.2016. Land acquisition, if vitiated for non-application of mind and undue haste by competent authorities – Held : No grounds were raised nor any foundation laid in the petitions alleging mala fide – Object of the 2002 Act was primarily to provide a Single Window Clearance by the High Level Committees constituted under the 2002 Act – Reports and recommendations of the different Committees as also the State Government have been gone through – Found that all aspects of the matter have been considered and a conscious decision has been taken on the overall conspectus of the project and the proposals submitted.s. 3(1), 1(3), 28(1) – Procedure prescribed to acquire land under – Duly followed or not – Held: Entire process as provided under the Act has been strictly followed – Division Bench in the impugned judgment apparently was swayed by its own personal views based on assumptions and having no material backing which led to the quashing of the notifications.ss. 28, 41 – Allotment of plots in special cases – Land Acquisition for single company, if can be said to be for public purpose and could be made under 1966 Act – Held : Under the Regulation 13, the Board is empowered to allot any plot or area to any individual or company for establishment of an industry in consultation with the State Government – This provision also contemplates acquiring land for the purpose of allotment to a single company to set up an industry – In the instant case, the allotment by the Board is duly approved by the State Government. Land acquisition for a non–applicant company under the Act, without its application being routed through State High Level Clearance Committee – Permissibility of – Held : Non–applicant company is fully owned subsidiary of the applicant company – Only change sought by the applicant was the integrated steel plant be set up by non-applicant which was its own subsidiary – These are commercial matters and the State after examining the proposal for change in its wisdom accepted the same – There was no change in the project, as such, regarding the finance, employment and other infrastructures – Thus, the said objection not maintainable.Reliance on Shri Ramtanu Coop. Housing Society Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra’s case for the proposition that the acquisition under the 1966 Act was in pari materia to the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1962 and, thus, the acquisition has to be for public purpose only and not for a private company – Correctness of – Held : Validity of the 1962 Act was being considered in the case of Shri Ramtanu – However, in the present litigation, there is no challenge to the validity of the 1966 Act or the 2002 Act – Purpose in 1962 Act was for establishment of industrial areas whereas in the other statute i.e 1966 Act, it was for promotion of the establishment and orderly development of industries – Thus, the reliance by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment on the case of Shri Ramtanu is misplaced – Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1962. Value judgments of policy views – Significance of – Conclusions arrived at in the impugned judgment, if vitiated on account of inclusion of value judgments of policy views by the High Court – Held : Division Bench introduced several value judgments and policy views in order to interpret the provisions of the 1966 Act and the 2002 Act – Such value judgments and policy views are beyond the domain of the Court – Courts should refrain itself from expressing value judgments and policy views in order to interpret statutes – Statutes are to be read in their plain language and not otherwise – Interpretation of Statutes.Petition for quashing the land acquisition by a fraction of landowners holding a fraction of acquired land which is only 10 % or less of the total acquired land – Maintainability of – Held : Quashing the entire acquisition at the instance of one land owner having 4.34 acres of land out of total acquisition for applicant company of 110 acres, would be against the public policy and public interest – Further, in the case of non-applicant company acquisition of 914 acres is challenged by a fraction of less than 10% land owners – Hence, Division Bench erred in quashing the acquisition proceedings. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 – Karnataka Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2002 – Object/scope – Discussed.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 1060
Petitioner	M/s. M.s.p.l. Limited
Respondent	The State Of Karnataka And Ors.
SCR	[2022] 14 S.C.R. 591
Judgement Date	2022-10-11
Case Number	4678

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

M/s. M.s.p.l. Limited Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

M/s. Ahuja Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.

M/s. Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms Private Limited and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others

M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.

M/s. Jethmull Bhojraj Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.

Neelagangabai and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.

State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. M/s Panda Infraproject Limited

Executive Engineer Karnataka Housing Board Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag & Ors.

Rameshwar & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others

M/s Acquainted Realtors Llp Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Haryana & Others

M/s. M.s.p.l. Limited Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors.

M/s. M.s.p.l. Limited Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

M/s. Ahuja Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.

M/s. Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms Private Limited and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others

M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.

M/s. Jethmull Bhojraj Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.

Neelagangabai and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.

State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. M/s Panda Infraproject Limited

Executive Engineer Karnataka Housing Board Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag & Ors.

Rameshwar & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others

M/s Acquainted Realtors Llp Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Haryana & Others

M/s. M.s.p.l. Limited Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors.