RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(GJH)-2017-11-269
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on
November 22,2017
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
COUNCIL OF CIVIL SERVICES UNION V. MINISTER FOR THE SERVICES [REFERRED TO]OPINIONS OF LORDS LOWRY AND ACKNER IN R.V. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT EX-PARTE [REFERRED TO]
FLEMMING (TRADING AS BODYCRAFT) V. REENUE AND CUSTOMS COMMISSIONERS [REFERRED TO]
PUTTALINGANAGOUDA AND ORS. VS. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF T.N. AND OTHERS V. ANANTHI AMMAL [REFERRED TO]
CHINTAMANRAO VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADRAS VS. V G ROW:THE UNION OF INDIA AND THE STATE OF TRAVANCORE COCHIN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. MANOHAR SINGH PRATAP SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KISHIP SINGH OTHERS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
P VAJRAVELU MUDALIAR MOST REV DR L MATHIAS VS. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR FOR LAND ACQUISITION WEST MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
COCHIN STATE POWER AND LIGHT CORPO RATION LIMITED VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD FARUK VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
LT GOVERNOR OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. AVINASH SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
JAYANTILAL AMRATHLAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. VITHAL RAO [REFERRED TO]
E P ROYAPPA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
DATTATRAYA GOVIND MAHAJAN STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH STATE OF PUNJAB NAGAORAO MAROTRAO INGOLE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA:RAJESH PACHAURI:SUCHA SINGHS:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. ATMA RAM SADASHIV DONGARWAR [REFERRED TO]
BABU SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT MATHURADAS MOHAN LAL KEDIA VS. RAMAN LAL KESHAV LAL SONI:SH S D MUNSHAW [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS BOMBAY PRIVATE LIMITED BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED STATESMAN LIMITED KASTURI AND SONS LIMITED ANANDA BAZAR PATRIKA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR DEY VS. TARAPADA DEY [REFERRED TO]
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BOMBAY VS. GODREJ AND BOYCE [REFERRED TO]
KAMALA DEVI BUDKIA VS. HEM PRABHA GANGUU [REFERRED TO]
MURARILAL JHUNJHUNWALA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO LIMITED RESERVE BANK OF INDIA RESERVE BANK OF INDIA RESERVE BANK OF INDIA VS. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA :TIMEX FINANCE AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED :TIMEX FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED :TIMEX FINANCE AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD VS. KISHAN [REFERRED TO]
SATENDRA PRASAD JAIN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHAND VED PRAKASH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. ANANTHI AMMAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. ANANTHI AMMAL [REFERRED TO]
KHODAY DISTILLERIES LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. MCDOWELL AND CO [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KRISHAN SHINGHAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. AROORAN SUGARS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
MURARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. BIHAR DISTILLERY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD VS. C R RANGADHAMAIAH [REFERRED TO]
AMARNATH ASHRAM TRUST SOCIETY VS. GOVERNOR OF U P [REFERRED TO]
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
SHARMA TRANSORT REP VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
WELFARE ASSOCIATION ARP MAHARASHTRA VS. RANJIT P GOHIL [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANKS STAFF UNION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ANAND SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PRAHLAD SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
K T PLANTATION PVT LTD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. RAKESH KOHLI [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAKANT CHHOTALAL GANDHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
AVANI EXPORTS VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]
Balmer Lawrie and Co LTD VS. Employees State Insurance Corporation [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN LAL (DEAD) VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. HARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS. DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [REFERRED TO]
M P STEEL CORPORATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SARKAR BUILDERS [REFERRED TO]
SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
SHREE BHAGWATI STEEL ROLLING MILLS VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED TO]
RAJBALA & OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
CELLULAR OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA VS. TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SUKHBIR SINGH & OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
BINOY VISWAM VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
SHAYARA BANO VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
R.SUBHASH REDDY -
(1.)In Special Civil Application No. 20362 of 2015, challenge is to Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Special Civil Application Nos. 12012 of 2014 to 12023 of 2014 have been filed to declare that the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are lapsed in view of the provision under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, with further relief to restrain the respondent authorities from taking possession of the lands of the petitioners therein.
(2.)As common issue arises for consideration in all the above petitions, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. For the purpose of disposal, we refer to the facts and reliefs sought for in Special Civil Application No. 20362 of 2015.
(3.)Special Civil Application No. 20362 of 2015 is filed with the prayers which read as under:
"(A) that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring Section 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 unconstitutional, violative of fundamental rights and ultra vires to the extent it provides that in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for companies where an award under Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid, the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed; Alternatively,
(B) that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ or mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that Section 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 does not apply to the petitioner company;
(C) pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay operation of Section 24 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to the extent it provides that in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for companies where an award under Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013 but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid, the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed;
(D) for ad interim relief in term of para (C) herein above; (E) for costs;
(F) for such other and further orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may required in the interest of justice."
;
(2.)As common issue arises for consideration in all the above petitions, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. For the purpose of disposal, we refer to the facts and reliefs sought for in Special Civil Application No. 20362 of 2015.
(3.)Special Civil Application No. 20362 of 2015 is filed with the prayers which read as under:
"(A) that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring Section 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 unconstitutional, violative of fundamental rights and ultra vires to the extent it provides that in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for companies where an award under Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid, the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed; Alternatively,
(B) that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ or mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that Section 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 does not apply to the petitioner company;
(C) pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay operation of Section 24 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to the extent it provides that in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for companies where an award under Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013 but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid, the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed;
(D) for ad interim relief in term of para (C) herein above; (E) for costs;
(F) for such other and further orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may required in the interest of justice."
;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.