PRANITA POWERLOOM COOP. SOC. LTD. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 891 · Decided: 15-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 6 S.C.R. 891 
PRANITA POWERLOOM COOP. SOC. LTD. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2566 of 2009) 
APRIL 15, 2009 
B 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, ~J.] 
' 
LANO ACQUISITION ACT, 1894: 
Sections 3(e}, 4, 5A, 6(1), 37(f)(vii) - Allotment tf land -
c 
Subsequent cancellation on the ground that complete 
information not furnished - Held: High Court not considered 
important objections -
Merely because s.5A enquiry is 
pending and objections could be taken by the parties, State 
Government cannot cure the illegality committed in the D 
issuance of s.4 Notification - Matters remanded to High Court 
for fresh consideration - Maharashtra Regional and Town 
Planning Act, 1966 - Section 125. 
Pratibha Nema & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Ors. (2003) 10 
SCC 626 and R.L. Arora v. State of UP. AIR 1962 SC 764, 
E 
referred to. 
4 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
2566 of 2009. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2006 of the 
F 
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 8967 of 2005. 
WITH 
; 
C.A. Nos. 2570 of 2009, 2572-73 of 2009, 2568 of 2009, 
G 
2574-2575 of 2009, 2567 of 2009, 2569 of 2009. 
S.K. Verma Vijay K. Singh, Manoj K. Singh Meenakshi 
Arora, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Naresh Kumar, Arundhati S. 
891 
H 
.' 
892 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R. 
A Sukhtankar, Uday U. Lalit, Prasenjit Keswani, Manu Beri, 
Gaurav Agrawal, Bhupender Yadav, S.S. Shemshery, Kiran 
Bala Sahay and R.C. Kohli for the Appellant. 
Jaideep Gupta, A. Mariamputham, Shivaji M. Jadhav, 
B Sanjay V. Kharde, Asha Gopalan, Rukhsana Choudhary for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
V.5. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of 
c SLP (C) No. 12077/07, as also SLP(C) No. 11250/08, SLP(C) 
No.11345-11346/08, SLP(C) No.11357/08, SLP(C) No. 
23332-23333/08, SLP(C) No.23335/08 and SLP(C) No.20656/ 
08. 
D 
2. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions. 
3. One lchalkaranji Industrial Cooperative Estate filed a 
Writ Petition No. 8967/05 before Bombay High Court, 
impleading the State of Maharashtra, Collector for District of 
Kolhapur, Commissioner for Directorate of Industries and Land 
E Acquisition Officer, Kolhapur initially. One Pride India 
Cooperative Textile Park Ltd. came to be joined as respondent 
No. 5 later on. In this petition, validity of the communication-cum-
order passed by the State of Maharashtra and the Collector 
dated 30.08.05 was challenged. By that order the acquisition 
F started in favour of the lchalkaranji Cooperative Society Ltd. 
(hereinafter called 'Society' for short) was cancelled. It was 
contended, inter alia, that the Society was a registered 
cooperative society under the Maharashtra Cooperative 
Societies Act and was established for the purposes of erecting 
G industrial estates for the benefit of its members and that it was 
active right from 1974 and was also instrumental in setting up 
Industrial Estate for the areas Kolhapur and lchalkaranji. 
4. It was claimed that in the year 197 4 the Kolhapur District 
H 
Planning Committee had assured the Society that an area of 
·f 
.. 
PRANITA POWERLOOM COOP. SOC. LTD. v. STATE 893 
OF MAHARASHrRA & ORS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.] 
600 acres would be made available to it for the purpose of A 
erecting such industrial estate. Initially in the year 1980, the area 
of 100 acres of land was sought to be acquired for the benefit 
of the said Society and that acquisition was completed in the 
year 1988 by the Land Acquisition Officer-respondent No.5. 
The Society had also paid Rs.37.50 lakhs towards the 
B 
acquisition charges. It was further contended that after the land 
was handed over to the Society, a layout of the land was 
prepared and some 457 plots were made therein. The Society 
made infrastructure for establishment of the industrial estate 
including roads, water supply, sewerage, electricity connection, c 
petrol pump, recreation grounds, roads for transportation etc. 
5. The Society further contended in its petition that several 
persons, who were in the waiting list of the State Cooperative 
Society as their members for allotment, made further cry for the ' 
allotment of plots to them so that they can set up industrial units 
D 
in that area. Considering the need for relocation for the 
industrial estate, a proposal came to be made by the Society 
to the respondents State authorities that additional land of 134 
acres at village Tardal be made available to them so that the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.