M/S V.K.M. KATTHA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 10 S.C.R. 33 · Decided: 16-08-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 10 S.C.R. 33 
MIS V.K.M. KATTHA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6792 of 2013) 
AUGUST 16, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI 
AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894- ss.4 & 5A- Non-publication 
A 
B 
of the substance of the notification as prescribed under the 
C 
Act in the locality concerned - Effect - Held: The requirement 
is mandatory - By effecting such publication in the locality, it 
is possible for the person in possession, namely, either the 
owner or lessee to make representation/ objection in enquiry 
u/s. 5A - By non-publication of the same in the locality as 
D 
provided under the Act, the owner or occupier loses his 
valuable right - Appellant-company prevented from making 
objection uls.5A -Acquisition proceedings in respect of lands 
belonging to appellant-company therefore liable to be 
quashed. 
E 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.4 - Acquisition of running 
industrial unit for public purpose - Justification - Held: Not 
justified - Appellant-Company was a running industrial unit 
even prior to the notification u/s.4 - Hence could not be 
acquired for a public purpose - No justification in acquiring 
a running industrial unit for industrialization of the area -
Impugned notifications qua the running industrial unit cannot 
be sustained in law. 
F 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.4 - Appel/ant-Comp<!nY G 
running an industry similar to the public purpose for which 
lands were being acquired ;- Location of appellant-Company 
on the extreme comer of the acquired lands - Respondent-
33 
H 
34 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
State itself excluded more than 76 acres of land - Held: Even 
if the Government or the authority concerned excludes the 
lands of the appellant-Company, there would not be any 
difficulty in executing the scheme - Lands of appellant-
company ought to have been excluded. 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 -
Land 
acquisition - Award -
Writ petition filed by appellant-
Jandowner within 5 weeks of the passing of the award -
Maintainability - Held: The writ petition was filed within 
C 
reasonable time - It could not be simply dismissed on the 
ground of delay or /aches. 
On 21-2-2005, the Haryana Government Industries 
Department issued a notification under Section 4 of the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of certain 
D lands for a public purpose. The lands belonging to· 
appellant-Company were covered in the said notification. 
The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 
29-12-2006 and the award was announced on 15-07-2007. 
E 
Challenging the said award, a writ petition was filed 
by the appellant-Company on 20.08.2007, i.e. within 5 
weeks of the passing of the award. The High Court 
dismissed the petition, and therefore the instant appeal. 
The appellant-Company submitted:- (i) that the High 
F 
Court committed an error in dismissing the writ petition 
filed by the appellant-Company on the ground that the 
same was not maintainable; (ii) that the notification under 
Section 4(1) of the Act was not published in the locality 
wherein the land is situate which prevented the 
G appellant-Company from making objection ui;ider 
Section 5A of the Act; (iii) that as the appellant-Company 
itself was a running industry on the date of the 
notification, the said land could not be acquired for a 
public purpose; and (iv) that inasmuch as the 
H respondent-State itself excluded more than 76 acres of 
V.K.M. KATTHA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF 35 
HARYANA 
land and the appellant is running an industry even as on 
A 
date, it ought to have been excluded. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The appellant-Company filed the writ petition 
within a reasonable time, namely, within 5 weeks of the 
B 
passing of the award. The Writ Petition filed by the 
appellant before the High Court cannot be simply 
dismissed on the ground of delay or laches. The said issue 
depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case 
and in view of the fact that the appellant has approached 
C 
the High Court within a reasonable time, it is but proper 
for the High Court to go into the merits of the claim of the 
appellant. In normal circumstance, the matter has to go 
back to the High Court for consideration of various points 
raised, however, in order to shorten the litigation. and of D 
the fact that necessary/ required materials are available 
before this Court, the case of both the parties is

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