9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce the order of winding up by the company court. The endeavour to include the ownership of lands belonging to third parties with effect from the date of coming into force of the 1986 Act by enacting the 2004 Act is therefore an exercise in futility. Therefore, it is patent that the impugned legislation is a nullity. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The Karnataka Co-operative Textile Mills (Acquisition and Transfer Amendment) Act, 2004 (Act No. 20 of 2005) is null and void as the same is inconsistent with the Constitution of India. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ' of possession of the leased land. By an order dated October 27, 2005, the application was allowed with a direction to put the petitioners in possession of the land. The petitioners were also allowed to purchase the debris and machinery on the land for a total sum of Rs. 14.42 lakhs. A sale certificate was issued to the petitioners in this regard. In this background, however, the State has enacted the Karnataka Co-operative Textile Mills (Acquisition and Transfer) (Amendment) Act, 2004 (Act No. 20 of 2005) (hereinafter referred to as "the 2005 Act" for brevity). The said Act envisages the acquisition of lands, held on lease for the purposes of the textile mills, with retrospective effect, from the date of the Parent Act. It is this which is under challenge. 3. In Writ Petition No. 55 of 2006, the case of the petitioners is as follows: The petitioners are the joint owners of the property in survey Nos. 16, 17, 19B bearing CTS No. 99 measuring 14 acres 28 guntas of Mariyan Timmasagara, Hubli Taluk, Dharwad District. These lands had been taken on lease for the very textile mills referred to in W. P. No. 14758 of 2006 and the lease-hold rights have been similarly transferred-since t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act was to revive the mills and render it a profit making entity. This effort failed though a sustained effort was made by the State Government for over a decade. The company ultimately having been ordered to be wound up, the object of the Act was no longer relevant and the Act was rendered obsolete and had spent itself out. The Amendment Act seeking to amend an Act which is obsolete is therefore an exercise in futility and a blatant attempt to illegally acquire land that is no longer available for the benefit of the Textile Mills or the company and the entity itself having been wound up, the same is irrational and invalid. 9. It is contended that the amendment is brought only with a view to acquire the lands of the petitioner and to enable the sale of the same to ensure payment of dues to banks, private unsecured creditors and the Government itself. The object of acquisition does not sub-serve any public purpose. 10. It is contended that the Amendment Act is not protected by article 31C of the Constitution of India as it does not in any way give effect to any of the directive principles of State Policy. Counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the following authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e landed property of the mills unless and until the ownership of the land is acquired by the Government in accordance with law. 14. The learned advocate general clarifies that while enacting the 1986 Act it was assumed that the lands were owned by the lessor. The 1986 Act having also received the assent of the President as required under article 31C and article 254(2), the objects of the Act indicate that the acquisition and transfer of the mills was in public interest and to secure the proper management of the mill so as to subserve the interest of the general public by ensuring continuous manufacture and to ensure the employment of thousands of workmen. The Act was hence in accordance with clauses (a) and (b) of article 39 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the 2005 Act seeking to introduce a new definition (gg) "owner of land" and sections 4, 5, 9, 10 and 15 of the Principal Act have been amended by inserting "owner of the land" after the words "lessor" and "lessee" wherever they appear. The petitioners are hence included to be covered under the provisions of the Act. 15. It is further pointed out that section 9 of the Principal Act provides for payment of Rs. 446.59 lakhs d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b) of the Constitution of India and is hence protected by article 31C of the Constitution of India. The authorities cited above are also to support the proposition that where a statutory amendment seeks to clarify the legislation so as to remove doubts, the same would have retrospective effect. It is open to the Legislature to alter law, retrospectively, which may even result in altering the basis of an earlier judicial pronouncement. 17. In the above facts and circumstances before addressing the legality or the validity of the provisions of the 2005 Act, the sequence of events and the resulting position, vis-a-vis the rights over the landed property of the mills, is to be taken note of. 18. This court had, at the instance of the petitioners who were the owners of part of the lands involved, in Writ Petition No. 4227 of 1999 and connected cases interpreted the provisions of the 1986 Act and held that the ownership rights of the land were not available for sale by the State Government under the Act. The said order passed on January 11, 2001, had attained finality. The above petition was filed in the wake of the Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation seek ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... construed and taken as appointment of an Assistant or Deputy Liquidator. As it is the responsibility of the official liquidator alone to oversee the winding up proceedings. It was observed that as the official liquidator had never been allowed to take possession or control of the company. The company directed that the persons then in charge of the affairs of the company whether described as managing director or in any other capacity, hand over the assets of the company to the official liquidator. 22. Subsequently, there was a direction dated October 20, 2005, to ascertain the value of the buildings and machinery on the land it was reported by the official liquidator that the same was totally valued at Rs. 14.42 lakhs. The applicants in C. A. No. 762 of 2002 expressed their willingness to purchase the same when the lands are to be handed over to them. The company court directed the official liquidator to receive the sum and deliver possession of the lands to the applicants, as per order dated October 27, 2005, in O. L. R. No. 674 of 2005. 23. It was thereafter reported that the, applicants in C. A. No. 762 of 2003 had been put in possession of the lands. Accordingly, the said appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
