LexM/S ULTRA-TECH CEMENT LTD. versus MAST RAM & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 443 : 2024 INSC 709 M/s Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd. v. Mast Ram & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 10662 of 2024) 20 September 2024 [J.B. Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the subject land and all other liabilities associated with it were transferred to the Appellant in terms of the Scheme; Whether it was the Appellant or JAL who was legally obliged to pay the compensation amount determined under the Supplementary Award; Whether the land in terms of Section 101 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 can be returned to the Respondent Nos. 1-6 at this stage under the scheme of the Act; In other words, what is the scope of Section 101; Whether the State of Himachal Pradesh, being a welfare state, had the responsibility to ensure full payment of compensation amount determined under the Supplementary Award dated 02.05.2022. Headnotes† Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein (original petitioners) and directed the Appellant herein to pay the requisite amount towards compensation as determined in the Supplementary Award dated 02.05.2022 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) (Respondent No. 10) in the first instance with liberty to recover the same from JAL (Respondent No. 11) if permissible under the legal relationship between the two companies – Correctness: Held: An analysis of the Scheme agreed between the Appellant and JAL is the key to determine who should pay the amount determined under the Supplementary Award dated 02.05.2022 – Clause 1.1 (o) defines the “Effective Date” as the date on which the Scheme becomes effective in accordance with its terms, which shall be the Closing Date [defined in Clause 1.1(k) and Clause * Author 444 [2024] 9 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports 10.1] – The said date was decided to be 29.06.2017 among the parties – The parties by way of Clause 1.1(w)(ix) agreed that all litigations pertaining to the business and assets being transferred to the Appellant that arose before or on the Closing Date would not be transferred to the Appellant and will remain with JAL – Clause 7.1 of the Scheme states without any ambiguity that any legal or other proceeding by or against JAL or its unit operating the cement project relating to the JAL Business as defined in Clause 1.1(w), initiated on or arising and pending before the Effective Date shall remain with JAL – The facts indicate that the land acquisition proceedings had commenced before the Effective Date of the Scheme (i.e. 29.06.2017) and the compensation remained undetermined as on the Effective Date – These facts attract the application of Clause 7.1 of the Scheme as the acquisition proceedings and the liability to pay compensation associated with it squarely falls within the meaning of ‘other proceedings’ as intended by the parties under the said Clause – JAL has also not disputed that it had made payment of the amount determined under the Award of 2018 i.e., Rs. 10,77,53,842/- after the Effective Date of the Scheme – The said amount has already been disbursed to the landowners – After the LAC determined the amount under the Award dated 08.06.2018, JAL paid the same without any protest or reference to the Scheme – Therefore, at the stage of the Supplementary Award pertaining to the same land and same original landowners, JAL cannot be allowed to take the plea that the payments with respect to the subject land were required to be made by the Appellant. [Paras 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29] Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.101 – It is the case of JAL that the substantial delay in acquisition of the subject land has frustrated its purpose, and it could not make any use of the land – It was submitted that if the Appellant does not require the said land, then it should be returned to the original landowners and the amount of Rs. 10,77,53,842/- paid under the Award of 2018 should be refunded to JAL: Held: The necessary conditions for the application of Section 101 are: (1) the land should be unutilized; and (2) the period it remains not in use should be at least five years from the date of taking of possession – There is no merit in the contention of JAL that the land be returned to the original landowners –
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.