M/S. M.S.P.L. LIMITED versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [2022] 14 S.C.R. 591 · Decided: 11-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
591
591
   [2022] 14 S.C.R. 591
M/S. M.S.P.L. LIMITED
v.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 4678 of 2021)
OCTOBER 11, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
592
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
593
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 mat

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