LexVIJ RESINS PVT. LTD. & ANR. ETC. versus STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- I •··~ 'y VIJ RESINS PVT. LTD. & ANR. ETC. · A v. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS. MAY 12, 1989 [R.S. PATHAK, CJ AND RANGANATH MISRA, J.] B Articles 19(J)(f), 31(2) and 31(2A)-Constitutional validity of Jammu & Kashmir Extraction of Resin Act, 1986: Jammu & Kashmir Extraction of Resin Act, 1986-Sections 3, 4 and 5-Whether constitu- tionally valid-Resin-Ban on extraction by Private persons-Right to appropriate usufruct of trees-Held right to property-Compensation C payable before property could be taken. These three Writ Petitions have been tiled ·by three different Private Limited Companies and their share-holders challenging the vires of the Jammu & Kashmir Extraction of Resin Act (7 of 1986). The circumstances that led to the tiling of these Writ Petitions may be stated D thus: . The State of Jammu & Kashmir with a view to industrialise the )._ under-developed State formulated schemes and invited outsiders to set up indnstries in the State and as a stimulus the Government offered land and other facilities. The Petitioner-Companies, in response to the E said invitation went to the State of Jammu & Kashmir and negotiated the arrangements, as a result of which each Company had obtained a . right to collect resin gum to process the same for industrial purposes. \ The Petitioner Company in Writ Petition No. 751 of 1986 had r obtained under Government order dated 27.4.79 allotment of 10 to 12 F lacs of blazes annually for extraction of resin from the forests in Poonch and Rambam Di.visions for a 11eriod of I 0 years. Government order granting rights had been made in favour of the Petitioner Company in W.P. No. 794of1986. The Petitioner-Company in W.P. No. 798of1986 was a processor only and had undertaken to work as a tapper. The orders passed in favour of these Companies referred to above were G challenged before this Court as being violative of Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution on the ground that that grant of forest rights to the Petitioners were arbitrary, ma/a fide and not in public interest. It was contended that State largesse had been created in favour of the Petition- ers at the cost of State Exchequer and the grant created monopoly. This Court dismissed the Writ Petitions holding that there was no substance H 257 258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 3 S.C.R. A in any of the contentions advanced by the Petitioners. B Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr,, [1980] 3 SCR 1336. The order made in favour of the Petitioner in W .P. No. 794 of 1986 and incorporated in the agreement dated 6.ll.1978 was also chal- lenged but this Court rejected the Petition. Brij Bhushan & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., [198612 sec 354. C While the Petitioners were carrying on with the business con- D tracted for, Governor's Act of 1986 came into force. The provisions ofthe said Act particularly ss. 3, 4 and 5 have been impugned in these Petitions. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioners that Government orders and contracts under which they have got the right to exploit or utilize the particular forest product amounts to "property" and they are entitled to protection thereof against expropriation and in case no compensation was provided, the provisions of the Act are hit for contra- vening the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(g) which confers E upon them the right to carry on any occupation, trade or business. On the other hand the case put forward by the State is that the benefits and privileges conferred on the three Petitioners either under contract or under Government orders did not constitute property and by the provi- sions of the Act no transfer of such property has taken place. F Allowing the Writ Petition, this Court, HELD: The statutory scheme of Jammu & Kashmir Extraction of Resin Act, 1986 is to extinguish private rights both in respect of Government owned trees as also trees in private ownership and to vest those rights in the State Government or the Government G Company. [27JA-B] The Executive grant or the contract created interest in the Petitioners and there is no room to doubt that by such process in favour of the Petitioners property right had been created. The interests which are in dispute before this Court do constitute property entitled to pro- H tection under Art. 19(l)(f) and are covered by Art. 31(2). [267G; 268A-BI ' ' ,.__ .. .. . VIJ RESIN v. STATE OF J & K 259 Ramana bayaram Shett
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.