9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Right of erstwhile landowners to reclaim surplus land. 2. Utilization of acquired land for purposes other than the original public purpose. 3. Legality of leasing acquired land to a private entity for industrial development. Summary of Judgment: 1. Right of Erstwhile Landowners to Reclaim Surplus Land: The appellants, including the heirs of the erstwhile landowners, claimed the right to reclaim the surplus land or have it sold via public auction. The court held that once the property is vested in the government u/s 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, the previous owners or their successors have no right to reclaim it. The learned Single Judge cited precedents to support this view, and the Division Bench upheld this decision. 2. Utilization of Acquired Land for Other Purposes: The appellants argued that the surplus land should not be used for purposes other than the original public purpose for which it was acquired. They contended that the establishment of a slaughterhouse was not in conformity with the public purpose stipulated during acquisition. The court found that the land was vested in the State free from encumbrances and could be utilized for industrial development, which constitutes a public purpose. The construction of a slaughterhouse was deemed a public purpose as it would generate employment and foreign exchange. 3. Legality of Leasing Acquired Land to a Private Entity: The appellants challenged the lease agreement on grounds of arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, arguing that the land was leased without public auction, resulting in a loss to the State exchequer. The court observed that there were no specific pleadings of malafides or statutory violations. The State justified the lease as a negotiated transaction to ensure the development of an integrated food processing unit and abattoir, which would generate employment and foreign exchange. The court ruled that the State's action was neither arbitrary nor illegal, and the lease was based on market value. The court emphasized that the absence of public auction does not automatically render the transaction arbitrary if justified by the State. Additional Observations: The court noted the delay in filing the writ petition and the significant investment made by the respondent in developing the project. Interference at this stage would adversely affect the project and employment. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the legality of the State's action in leasing the land to the private entity for industrial development. The judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench were affirmed.
|
