Madhya Pradesh High Court

Kjs Cement Limited vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 May, 2025

..1..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23119
2025:MPHC

W.A.No. 776/ 2024 & others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
WRIT APPEAL No. 776 of 2024
K.J.S. CEMENT LIMITED
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT APPEAL No. 706 of 2023
KJS CEMENT LIMITED
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT APPEAL No. 707 of 2023
KJS CEMENT LIMITED
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 710 of 2023
KJS CEMENT LIMITED
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 711 of 2023
KJS CEMENT LIMITED
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 716 of 2023
KJS CEMENT LIMITED
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: CHRISTOPHER
PHILIP
Signing time: 15-05-2025
11:00:29
..2..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23119
2025:MPHC

W.A.No. 776/ 2024 & others

WRIT APPEAL No. 778 of 2024
K.J.S CEMENT LIMITED
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Shri Brian Da'Silva
Da' - Sr. Advocate with Shri Vishwa Mohan
Bhardwaj - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Anubhav Jain - Government Advocate for the respondents /
State.
Shri Shrikrishna Sharma - Advocate for the Indian Railways.
Shri Anirudh Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the respondent No. 5 &
6 in WA No. 707/2023.
Shri Sanjay Sanyal - Advocate for the respondent No.4 in WA
No.776/024, respondents No. 6, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19 in WA No. 706/2023,
respondent No. 5 in WA No.710/2023, respondents No.5 & 6 in WA
No.711/2023 and respondents
espondents No. 4 to 9 in WA No. 716/2023.

Reserved on - 24.04.2025
Pronounced on - 14.05.2025

ORDER

Per: Suresh Kumar Kait, Kait Chief Justice

1. In n all these writ appeals, a common question of fact and law is involved and therefore, they are heard analogously and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts and relevant material on record are taken into consideration from W.A.No.776/2024.

..3..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23119 2025:MPHC

W.A.No. 776/ 2024 & others

2. The present Writ Appeal under 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalya (Khand Nyaypeeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 ha has been filed against the order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in in Writ Petition No.20386/2013 whereby the Award dated 14.06.2013 passed in Revenue Case No. 6A 6A-82/2012-13 13 has been quashed.

3. The present Appeal pertains to Land bearing Khasra no. 65/2, 65/4, area of 0.3 hectares each, situated at Village Gram Lakwar, Tehsil:

Maihar, District:Satna (MP) (henceforth referred to as the 'land in question').

4. Respondents number 4 to 6, who are the owners of the land in question, filed the afore aforesaid Writ Petition before the learned Single Bench challenging the award dated 14 14.06.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Sub Officer/ Land Acquisition Officer Maihar M on the ground that Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was without jurisdiction as under

section 44 (b) of the Land Acquisition Act Act, 1894, the land could be acquired by the private companies only for limited purpose. The respondent number 4 to 6 further submitted before the learned Single Bench that under Section ection 40 (1) (a) lays down that purpose of the acquisition is to obtain land for erection of dwelling houses for workmen employed by the company or for amenities directly connected therewith. Due to bar under Section ection 44(b), 44 the Land Acquisition isition Officer does not have any jurisdiction to pass order for acquisition of their land land..

5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State G Government submitted that the procedure prescribed under Land Acquisition Act, Act 1894 was duly followed.

..4..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23119 2025:MPHC

W.A.No. 776/ 2024 & others

6. The learned Single Bench of this Court, ourt, after hearing both the parties observed that the Counsel appearing for the State tate could not point out compliance of Section ection 40 (1) (a) and save the action of acquisition under Section ection 44 b of the Land Acquisition Act.

7. The learned Single ingle Bench ench also observed that since the Award was passed on 14.06.2013 2013 and the Act ct of 2013 was made on 27 27.09.2013, therefore, the procedure prescribed under Land Acquisition Act, Act 1894 has to be followed.. The learned Single Bench noted the various provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and further observed that the State Government has to follow procedure prescribed in Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of land for the company.

8. The learned Single Bench further held that the Appellant Appellant-Company falls within the definition of section 3(ee) and the first step for acquisition of a company is to hold an inquiry, which is to be conducted under Section 40 of the Act ct and only after the government ent is satisfied that the inquiry for the purpose of acquisition of land has been duly conducted, an agreement has to be entered between the State Government and the Company.

ompany. It also held that acquisition of land for private company is restricted for the purpose urpose mentioned in Section 41 (a) for the purpose of erection or dwelling of houses or amenities.

9. The learned Single Bench held that respondent-

respondent State tate had failed to show that land in question has been acquired for construction of dwelling houses for workmen or provide amenities to the workmen, such as road to workmen in dwelling houses. The acquisition sought was made for laying down railway sliding track for transportation of raw material and other products for the Appellant Appellant-company, which was not forr public purpose,

..5..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23119 2025:MPHC

W.A.No. 776/ 2024 & others

but for industry or for some work. The learned Single Bench held that acquisition of land has been made contrary to the purposes for which it can be acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and allowed the writ petition filed by respondents responde No.4 to 6 vide impugned Judgment dated 08.02.2024 which is under challenge before this Court.

10. The appellant before this Court has submitted that the landowners were given due opportunity to raise objections in the acquisition proceedings, and it is only after consideration of their objections, the Award ward has been passed in favo favourr of the appellant. The purpose of acquisition is for public purpose only, as it will provide employment to the public as well as dwelling houses to them. The acquisition proceedings have taken place after following due process of law and conducting inquiry under Section 40 of the Act of 1894.

11. The appellant has submitted that some of the land owners have already agreed to the acquisition of land and they have accepted the offer of jobs made by the appellant. It is also submitted that the learned Single Bench of this court did not appreciate that there shall be dwelling houses as per Section 40 (1) ((a) of the Act for the workmen, along with the other developments as well.

12. In relation to Section 43 of the Act, reliance has been placed upon decision of the Supreme Court in Bajirao T. Kote v. State of Maharashtra,, (1995) 2 SCC 442 and decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Daljit Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 7400 in support of its case.

..6..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23119 2025:MPHC

W.A.No. 776/ 2024 & others

13. The submissions advanced by both the sides were heard at length and the impugned Order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge as well as documents placed on record have been carefully perused.

14. The appellant is a company involved in the manufacturing of cement ement and claims to have capacity of 2000 workers working in it. The appellant also claims that it supplies cement to various States tates of India through transportation, and the business of the company is for public purpose.

15. The appellant had applied to the State Government of Madhya Pradesh for acquisition of the land in question for laying laying down railway track for facilitation of transport of its products from the factory. For this purpose, the appellant entered into a Memorandum of Understanding nderstanding dated 16.02.2008 (Annexure Annexure R-1) R wherein it was mentioned that the appellant was interested in in setting up 1.5 million ton per annum cement plant and captive power plant in Sat Satna District of Madhya dhya Pradesh with a total investment of 750 crores. It was agreed that Madhya dhya Pradesh Trade and Investment Facilitation Corporation Limited, a wholly holly owned Undertaking of Government overnment of Madhya Pradesh, shall ll facilitate the appellant to obtain necessary clearances and concessions from State Government to make the project viable.

16. The appellant vide letter dated 25.02.2010 2010 written by the Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, Board, Government of India, was informed that the Ministry off Railways has granted clearance for construction of private siding to be served from Maihar Maihar Railway Station on West W Central Railway ailway for the proposed traffic traffic, subject to necessary approval approva from the

..7..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23119 2025:MPHC

W.A.No. 776/ 2024 & others

Ministry of Coal oal and other ful fulfilment ilment of other conditions set out by the Railways.

17. The appellant thereafter applied and was granted approval by the Railways for constructing Railway Siding Track vide Communication dated 15.09.2010. In June 2011, the appellant submitted a detailed etailed Project Report with the Government. The report was prepare prepared d through its consultant wherein details were given as to how the private siding would be constructed, what would be the expected costs and how it will work.

18. After getting necessary approvals from the Railway Department, the appellant approached the owners of the private land over which its private siding was to be constructed, constructed to purchase the land. The appellant claims that it made all efforts to purchase the land directly from the land owners by negotiating the cost and price, however, it did not succeed.

su Therefore, herefore, the appellant reached the State Government for initiating the land acquisition proceedings for the purpose of laying down its private track and siding.

19. On 12.07.2011, 2011, the Secretary of State Government wrote to the Collector of District istrict Satna for taking necessary steps for preparing proposal for acquisition. Consequently, the SDO, Maihar issued letter dated 14.07.2011 2011 to the Collector of district Satna for taking steps towards making proposal for purpose of land acquisition. The S SDO, Maihar har thereby directed the T Tehsildar to take necessary steps and to conduct due inspection and inquiry regarding land to be acquired.

20. Enquiry nquiry under Section 40 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was initiated and procedure prescribed under Section 9 was as fully followed.

..8..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23119 2025:MPHC

W.A.No. 776/ 2024 & others

The Tehsildar forwarded its detailed report to the SDO, who further forwarded it to the Collector ollector vide Order dated 15.09.2011.

21. The Collector, ollector, thereafter submitted its report dated 30.12.2011 30 to the Secretary through the Commissioner ommissioner mentioning the consent to start with the process of land acquisition, which clearly mentioned that the proposed land was the most suitable land for the purpose of construction of railway track, and no alternate part of land was available to the project.

22. The Commissioner, after receiving of Report dated 06.01.2012 from the Collector, ollector, forwarded the same to the Secretary for the State, State who gave final approval for land acquisition on 27 27.02.2012.

2012. The appellant thereafter entered into an a agreement/ contract with the State Government on 17.05.2012, 2012, which was notified in the Gazette on 01.06.2012 and placed on record as Annexure R R-9 with its reply by the State Government.. Thereafter, on 12 12.03.2013 2013 formal direction to prepare the Award was given by the Collector to the SDO, Maihar.

23. Subsequent ubsequent upon afor aforesaid directions, proceedings under Section 9 of the Act ct were initiated, wherein objections of the respondents No.4 to 6 were recorded and dealt with. On 14 14.03.2013 the final Award ward was passed by the Acquisition Authority.

uthority.

24. The provisions for acquisition of land in respect of the company are provided under Chapter Chapter-VII VII of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 39 of the Land Acquisition Act provides the previous consent of Government nt and execution of agreement is necessary. Section 40 of the Act provides that such consent shall not be given unless the Government without obtaining report from the Collector under Section 55-A A (2) of the

..9..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23119 2025:MPHC

W.A.No. 776/ 2024 & others

Act. After the enquiry report is submitted, the C Company ompany shall enter into an agreement under Section 41 of the Act. In the present case, the enquiry was conducted under Section 40 of the Act and only after reaching to the satisfaction that the Appellant shall increase industrialization and provide employment ent in the State of Madhya Pradesh and generate revenue for the State, the Award has been granted. This was followed by agreement by the State Government dated 17.05.2012.

25. The State Government having bound itself by agreement dated 17.05.2012 notified in official Gazette on 01.06.2012, 01.0 .2012, to provide land to the appellant for Railway siding, Section 43 of the Act of 1894 came in force, which is as under:-

under:

"43.

43. Sections 39 to 42 not to apply where Government bound by agreement to provide land for companies.-The companies provisions of sections 39 to 42, both inclusive, shall not apply and the corresponding sections of the Land Acquisition Act, 1870 (10 of 1870), 1870) shall be deemed never to have applied, to the acquisition of land for any Railway or other company, for thee purposes of which, [under any agreement with such company, the Secretary of State for India in Council, the Secretary of State, [the Central Government or any State Government] is, or was bound to provide land."

land.

As per the above provision, once there iiss agreement by the State, then Section 39 to 42 cease to operate, hence, pre pre-condition condition of Section 40(1)(a) also ceased to operate. Once Section 40 ceased to operate, then non-compliance compliance of Section 40(1)(a) was totally inconsequential and could not be relied d to annul the award. Interestingly, the agreement dated 17.05.2012 has not been put to challenge.

..10..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23119 2025:MPHC

W.A.No. 776/ 2024 & others

26. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single Bench has erred in not appreciating the acquisition of land to the Appellant which has been granted after following due procedure of law and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.

27. In view of above, the appeals are allowed and the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.

(SURESH KUMAR R KAIT) KAIT (VIVEK VIVEK JAIN) JAIN CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE