SIEL FOODS & FERTILIZERS INDUSTRIES versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 3 S.C.R. 809 · Decided: 25-03-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 3 S.C.R. 809 
SIEL FOODS & FERTILIZERS INDUSTRIES 
. A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
Review Petition (C) Nos. 1200 of 2002 
IN 
IA NO. 22, 36 AND 129 
IN 
W. P. (C) NO. 4677 OF 1985 Etc. 
MARCH 25, 2010 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND 
J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] 
B 
c 
Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957 -
s. 15 -
Shifting/relocation of polluting industries from Delhi - Land 
D 
available as a result of shifting - Direction of Court by various 
orders to use the land partly by land-owner and a part of it to 
. be surrendered to Development Authority (DOA) for 
development of green belt - Land-owners time and again 
taking plea that the authorities should acquire the land under 
E 
DOA Act and pay compensation - Court in lieu of monetary 
compensation giving additional FAR to the /and-owners -
Petition for review of the previous orders of the Court taking 
plea that ODA could not take the land without resorting to 
compulsory acquisition - Held: Review not maintainable -
Plea regarding acquisition repeatedly rejected by Court - The 
F 
land surrendered by land-owners need not be acquired and 
additional FAR was the only compensation - The Land is 
surrendered by the land-owners to ODA in Trust for the 
purpose of development of green belt and for the benefit of 
the community - If ODA in deviation to the Trust, uses the 
G 
land for any other purpose, the land-owner entitled to 
compensation - Since the land-owner already received some 
consideration in the form of additional f AR, ODA and land-
809 
H 
810 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 
A owner to share the compensation at 50% each - Any change 
in use of the sun-endered land to be only after prior permission 
of Delhi High Court - Transfer of the land, surrendered by one 
of the applicants, by DOA to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation is 
not permissible - Urban Development - Environmental Law 
B - Trust. 
In a Public Interest Litigation (M.C. Mehta Vs. Union 
of India & Ors.), series of orders were passed regarding 
shifting and relocating several hazardous, noxious, large 
C and heavy industries, causing extensive pollution, from 
Delhi. Supreme Court monitored the matter and directed 
the authorities concerned to examine the question 
regarding utilization of land, made available as a 
relocation/shifting of industries. 
D 
Supreme Coµ rt passed order dated 10.05.1996 taking 
the view that lind surrendered should be used for the 
' 
. 
development of green belts and open spaces. The land 
owner would develop part of the land for his own use and 
surrender the remaining land for the use of community 
E at large to Delhi Development Authority (ODA). The extent 
of land for community use and for personal benefit of 
land-owners was also specified. 
By another order dated 08.07 .1996, the Court 
F directed that the use of the land would be permitted in 
terms of the order dated 10.05.1996. By further order 
dated 04.12.1996, it was clarified that the order dated 
10.05.1996 regarding the land-use was to be applicable 
for relocating industries as well as to those who decide 
to close down and not to relocate. 
G 
Some of the industries filed IAs praying for direction 
to ODA to acquire the land under Delhi Development 
Authority Act, 1957 (ODA Act) or Land Acquisition Act, 
1894, which was required to be surrendered. The IAs 
H were dismissed as withdrawn. 
SIEL FOODS & FERTILIZERS INDUSTRIES v. UNION 811 
OF INDIA & ORS. 
The Court by order dated 28.04.2000 directed that as 
A 
a compensation, FAR would stand increased to 'one and 
a half times of the permissible FAR under the Master Plan' 
and held that ODA was not bound to acquire the land u/ 
s. 15 of ODA Act. 
B 
Another attempt was made by the industries by 
raising the issue regarding compensation in an IA filed 
by ODA, wherein the plea was rejected .. 
The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking 
review of the orders dated 10.05.1996, 08.07.1996, C 
04.12.1996 and 28.04.2000, primarily taking the plea that 
ODA should resort to compulsory acquisition u/s. 15 of 
DOA Act. 
The applicant in IA No. 1914 of 2006 and IA No. 2205 
D 
of 2007 contended that the land surrendered by it to DOA 
was further transferred to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation on 
payment of a premium and other amount and that such 
transfer was impermissible and that the monetary gain 
was required to be paid over to the land-owner. 
E 
Dismissing the petitions, the Court 
HELD: 1. The orders dated 10.5.1996, 8.7.1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.