M.C. MEHTA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 12 · Decided: 29-08-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. KIRPAL

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
M.C. MEHTA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 29, 2000 
[B.N. KIRPAL AND MRS. RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Industrial Pollution-Delhi-Brick Kilns-Closure and shifting out of 
Delhi-Orders passed by Supreme Court-Direction to brick kiln owners to 
C surrender land without being paid any compensation-Applications by brick 
kiln owners for modification of orders-Held, applications are allowed-
Modijied order that with the closure of the brick kilns or change in use to 
fly-ash technology, the owners of the land on which they were situated would 
not be under any obligation to surrender any land-However this will not 
apply to those Brick kiln owners who have availed benefits in the matter of 
D relocation. 
MC. Mehta v. Union of India, (1996) 4 SCC 351 and M.C. Mehta v. 
Union of India, [1998) 9 SCC 149, referred to. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Interlocutory Application Nos. 
E 1243, 1246, 1247, 1248 and 1259. 
IN 
I.A. No. 129 in I.A. No. 22 
IN 
F 
Writ Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
K.N. Raval and Mukul Rohtagi Additional Solicitor Generals, Ranjit 
Kumar (A.C.), M.C. Mehta, Vijay Panjawani f?r (C.P.C.B.), C.V. Subba Rao, 
G R.N. Verma, S.K. Dwivedi for Union of India, K.C. Kaushik, S.N. Terdel for 
(Min. ofU.D.) V.B. Saharya, for (D.D.A.), D.N. Goburdhan, Ms. Geeta Luthra, 
Ms. Pinky Anand, for NCT, Delhi, Ms. Sheil Sethi for N.C.R.P.B., R.C. Verma, 
C. Siddharth, for (DPCC), E.C. Agarwala, Rishi Agarwal, Ashwini Kumar, 
Dhruv Mehta, S.K. Mehta, Ms. Shobha, Surya Kant and R.S. Suri for the 
H appearing parties. 
12 
.. 
.. 
M.C. MEHTA v. U .O.I. 
13 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
A 
These applications are filed by the erstwhile brick Kiln owners who had 
their brick kilns in the NCT of Delhi. A prayer in these applications is for the 
modification of the order dated 10.5.96 and 26.11.96 passed by Court in I.A. 
22 in W.P. (C) No. 4677/85 so as to delete the direction by which the applicants 
had been directed to surrender the land without being paid any compensation. B 
This Court was dealing with industrial pollution in Delhi. As per the 
Master Plan 1990, industries had been placed into different categories. Those 
industries which were placed in category-H were required to close down and/ 
or to be shifted out of Delhi within three years of the Master Plan coming C 
into effect. When the said industries did not shift or close, Writ Petition was 
filed which led to the passing of the order dated 10th May, 1996 reported as 
[ 1996] 4 SCC 351. This order specifically dealt with the case of hazardous, 
noxious industries and the directions which were given therein inter alia 
required certain percentage of land which was being used by those industries 
being surrendered and at the same time the Court permitted fifty percent extra D 
F.A.R. on the remaining land. The land was required to be utilised in the 
manner indicated in the Master Plan. 
In the Master Plan of 1990, brick kilns were not shown as a category-
H industry. It is only after Report was submitted by the Delhi Pollution E 
Control Committee that by an order dated 26.11.96 [1998] 9 SCC 149 this Court 
came to the conclusion that 246 brick kilns operating in various zones of the 
N.C. Territory of Delhi were category-H industries and as such could not 
operate as a said industry. While ordering their closure and shifting from 
Delhi it was observed in paragraph 6 of the directions that the use of the land 
which would become available on account of shifting/relocation of the brick F 
kilns shall be permitted in terms of the order of this Court dated 10th May, 
1996 in MC. Mehta v. Union of India. It was also stated that the shifting brick 
kilns shall be given incentives and the brick kilns should shift to fly ash 
technology. 
It is not in dispute that large number of these brick kilns owners were 
occupying land which they had taken on licence/lease. It is also not in 
dispute that prior to the passing of the aforesaid order dated 26.11.96 no 
notice had been issued to the owners of the land who were the landlords of 
G 
the brick kiln owners. Their rights were vitally affected and the principle of 
natural justice would have required an opportunity of hearing being given to H 
14 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A them. This was denied. 
... 
We also find that the brick kilns were situated on agricultural land, no 
construction of the type which has been permitted to indu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.