M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
- SCC(2003) 10 SCC 566
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an allottee of industrial plots has received physical possession of demarcated land, and disputes arise over the possession of those plots, such disputes may be resolved through an on-site inspection and verification process conducted by higher officers of the State Government and the relevant authorities, rather than through contested proceedings. An allottee who receives allotment of industrial plots and takes physical possession is subject to a court-directed obligation to shift operations to the allotted site and close down existing operations at a specified deadline; the State Government is entitled to enforce cessation of operations by disconnecting utilities on the specified date. Where construction plan sanctions are sought for industrial plots allotted by the State Government, the State Government is obliged to grant such sanctions within one month of receipt of a proper application, and may waive the requirement of a registered lease deed as a precondition to such sanction.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Government of West Bengal submits that on the basis of the order passed by this Court the State Government has delivered possession of 231 plots in Zone Nos. 1 to 5 to the allottees. He further submits that allottees of the said plots, if files proper application for sanction of the plan for construction of the premises over the same, the same would be sanctioned by the State Government within a period of one month from the date of its receipt. He further submits that the State Government would not insist for the Registered Lease Deed which is to be executed for the sanction of the plan for construction of buildings.
2. Learned Counsel for the State of West Bengal as well as BOT Party state that these 231 Plots are demarcated by proper boundary and that physical possession of these plots have been handed over to the concerned parties. Still, however, if there is any dispute over it, it would be open to the concerned tannery holders to be present at the site on 13th August, 2001 at 11.00 a.m. where the concerned higher officers of the State Government as well as BOT Party would remain present for sorting out any difficulty in handing over the possession of the plots.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the BOT Party as well as for the State of West Bengal state that appropriate action would be taken for having Mobile Crime Recovery Units as early as possible and in any case on or before 28th February, 2002.
4. Hence, it is directed that these 231 allottees would shift their industries at the site where they are allotted the plots before 28th February, 2002 and close down their existing units at the place where they are functioning at present. Further the State Government is directed to disconnect the electricity as well as water supply on 28th February, 2002 to these 231 industries at the place where they are functioning at present.
5. Learned Counsel on behalf of the BOT Party states that at present electricity as well as water supply is available in Zone Nos. 1 to 5 for construction purposes at the plots allotted to the tanners.
6. Learned Counsel for the State Government submits that on or before 28th February, 2002 the State Government would see that near the Complex a Police Station as well as a Fire Brigade Station would be provided and would abide by the directions contained in the order of this Court dated 27th March, 2000.
7. IA Nos. 19-30, 31 filed by Mr. DP Mukherjee, Advocate, IA No. 5 in respect of CETP filed by Mr. Sanjay Parekh, Advocate along with the IA No... filed by Mr. Somnath Mukherjee in RP(C)No. 829/1997 in WP(C)No. 3727/85 be listed on 9-8-2001 along with the matter of refund of Rs. 6 lakhs to the petitioner as mentioned Ms. Sumita Mukherjee, Advocate in the Court be listed on 9-8-2001.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free