ANIL AGARWAL FOUNDATION ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS

Citation: [2023] 8 S.C.R. 969

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.

Judgment text

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ANIL AGARWAL FOUNDATION ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011 ANIL AGARWAL FOUNDATION ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011) APRIL 12, 2023 [M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ. ] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4(1), 6, 44B - Land Acquisition Rules, 1963 - rr.

3 & 4 - Acquisition Proceedings - Allotment of land - To Private Company - For setting up of University - Undue Favour to Company - Non-compliance of Mandatory Provisions - Doctrine of Public Trust - Violation of - Appellant, a private company at that time, made a representation to the Govt to grant land to set up a University - Necessary steps were taken by the Govt for allotment of land - However, the Law Department opined that the land can be acquired only for a Public Company under the 1894 Act - Pursuant to which, appellant company passed resolution to change the status from Private Company to Public Company and intimated the same to Govt. - Thereafter, Land Acquisition notifications u/s 4(1) of the Act were issued for 6917.

63 acres - Writ Petition was filed in the High Court challenging the entire acquisition proceedings - Division Bench of High Court allowed the Petition and held that the entire proceeding was in flagrant violation of the statutory provisions of the Act - High Court quashed the acquisition proceedings by observing that the public interest was affected and there was violation of rule of law - On appeal, held: Initiation of the acquisition proceedings was by the Vedanta Foundation and thereafter by the Anil Agarwal Foundation, which admittedly at the relevant time and as on 19. 07. 2006 was a private company - It was the case of appellant that it successfully converted into the public company on 23. 11.

2006 and it increased number of members from 3 to 7 and in terms of Section 44 of the Companies Act, 1956, it amended its Articles of Association to delete the restriction on free transferability of the shares and the same has been acknowledged by the Registrar of Companies (ROC) by acknowledgment dated 21. 02. 2007 and 03. 03. 2011 - However, even the subsequent acknowledgment by 969 the Registrar of Companies on 21. 02. 2007 and 03. 03. 2011 was much after s. 4(1) notification which were issued between 13. 12. 2006 to 21. 08. 2007 - Therefore, legally, the appellant was not converted to public company at the relevant time - At the relevant time, when the company was a private company, in view of the bar under s.

44- B of the 1894 Act, the lands in question could not have been sought to be acquired by the appellant company - Subsequent conversion from private company to public company was an attempt to get out of the statutory provision under the Act, 1894, which is mala fide exercise on the part of the appellants - Even there was non- compliance of mandatory provisions under rr. 3 and 4 of the Rules, 1963 and therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings for the beneficiary company was vitiated - There was also non-application of mind by the State Government on environmental aspects and passing of two rivers from the acquired lands in question - How the maintenance of the rivers etc.

can be handed over to the beneficiary company - If the lands in question are continued to be acquired by the beneficiary company, the control of the rivers would be with the said private company, which would violate the Doctrine of Public Trust - Further, there is a Wildlife Sanctuary, just adjacent across the road to the proposed university and the lands acquired - Therefore, large-scale construction for establishment of the proposed university as observed by the High Court will also adversely affect the Wildlife Sanctuary, entire Eco system and the ecological environment in the locality - Even otherwise, there is non-application on part of the State Government on the requirement of the lands by the beneficiary company - From the material on record, it appears that undue benefits were proposed / in fact offered and given to the beneficiary company providing undue largesse - It is not appreciable why the Government offered such an undue favour to one trust/ company - Thus, the entire acquisition proceedings and the benefits, proposed by the State Government were vitiated by favourism and violative of Art.

14 of the Constitution - High Court was justified in setting aside the entire acquisition proceedings, which was vitiated by non-compliance of the statutory provisions under the Act, 1894 and the Rules, 1963 and also vitiated by mala fides and favourism and is a clear case of the non-application of mind on relevant aspects - Constitution of India - Art. 14. ANIL AGARWAL FOUNDATION ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The initiation of the acquisition proceedings was by the Vedanta Foundation and thereafter by the Anil Agarwal Foundation, which admittedly at the relevant time and as on 19. 07. 2006 was a private company having three Directors on its Board and less than seven members. The initiation of the proceedings to acquire the identified lands, identified by the appellant company was in the month of April/June, 2006, which was followed by the MoU dated 19. 07. 2006. Therefore, the relevant date for consideration would be 19. 07.

2006 and not 13. 12. 2006 as sought to be contended on behalf of the appellants. [Para 8. 5][1014-F-G, H; 1015-A] 1. 2 At this stage, it is required to be noted that even otherwise the subsequent alleged conversion from private company to public company was an attempt to get out of the statutory provision under the Act, 1894. The Law Department specifically observed that the land cannot be acquired by private company for the purposes for which the lands were sought to be acquired, only thereafter the appellants changed the status of the company from private company to public company. The aforesaid was a mala fide exercise on the part of the appellants. [Para 8. 6][1015-B-C] 1. 3 It is the case on behalf of the appellant that the appellant successfully converted into the public company on 23. 11.

2006 and it increased number of members from 3 to 7 and in terms of Section 44 of the Companies Act, 1956, it amended its Articles of Association to delete the restriction on free transferability of the shares and the same has been acknowledged by the Registrar of Companies (ROC) by acknowledgment dated 21. 02. 2007 and 03. 03. 2011 is concerned, it is required to be noted and as observed hereinabove the relevant date for consideration would be June, 2006 and in any case 19. 07. 2006 when the MoU was entered into. Even the subsequent acknowledgment by the ROC was on 21. 02. 2007 and 03. 03. 2011 even much after Section 4(1) notification. Therefore, as rightly observed and held by the High Court legally, the appellant was not converted to public company, which as such was a Section 25 company and therefore, not a public company. [Para 8. 7][1015-D-G] 2.

From the material on record, the High Court has given the specific findings that there is a non-compliance of mandatory provisions under Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules, 1963 and therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings for the beneficiary company has been vitiated and there are checks and balances and certain mandatory procedures and requirements are to be satisfied, more particularly, when the lands are to be acquired for the company, the same have to be adhered to and non-consideration of the relevant aspects, which are mandatory to be considered under Rule 4 would vitiate the entire acquisition proceedings as the subjective satisfaction by the State Government has been vitiated on non-consideration of the relevant aspects, more particularly, the aspects mentioned in Rule 4. [Para 8. 15][1021-C-D] 3.

The most important aspect, which is required to be considered is the non-application of mind by the State Government on environmental aspects and passing of two rivers from the acquired lands in question. It is not in dispute that from the lands in question two rivers namely 'Nuanai' and 'Nala' are flowing, which as such were acquired by the State Government. How the maintenance of the rivers etc. can be handed over to the beneficiary company. If the lands in question are continued to be acquired by the beneficiary company, the control of the rivers would be with the said private company, which would violate the Doctrine of Public Trust. Even requiring the beneficiary company to maintain the flow of above two rivers may also affect the residents of the locality at large. It is also required to be noted that just across the road, there is a Wildlife Sanctuary, which is just adjacent across the road to the proposed university and the lands acquired.

Therefore, the large-scale construction for the establishment of the proposed university as observed by the High Court will also adversely affect the Wildlife Sanctuary, entire Eco system and the ecological environment in the locality. It is a duty of the State to protect the Wildlife Sanctuary and it may affect the entire Eco system and the ecological environment in the locality. It is also required to be noted that even the distance of the sea from the proposed Vedanta University is approximately 2000 meters. Merely because the Balukhand Wildlife Sanctuary is separated from the proposed site by a highway - Puri-Konark Marine Drive, cannot be a ground to acquire the huge lands for ANIL AGARWAL FOUNDATION ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. the proposed university and as rightly observed by the High Court, the same will adversely affect the Wildlife Sanctuary and the entire Eco system and the ecological environment in the locality.

The aforesaid aspects has not at all been considered by the State Government and/or the Collector and/or the appropriate authority even while considering the proposal and/or even the objections under Section 5A of the Act, 1894. [Para 8. 17 & 8. 18][1022-F-H; 1023-A-D] 4. Even otherwise, there is a non-application on the part of the State Government on the requirement of the lands by the beneficiary company. The lands were proposed to be acquired at the instance of one foundation / company and the State Government was dealing with the lands belonging to the agricultural landowners. The Government is holding a public trust and has to deal with the lands belonging to private landowners, more particularly, agricultural landowners in accordance with law. The State Government could not have considered the proposal from only one beneficiary/trust. There may be other public trusts / companies, who might be interested in establishing such university.

Even no proper inquiry seems to have been initiated by the Government / Collector while considering the proposal by the beneficiary company. It is required to be noted that initially, 15,000 acres of the agricultural lands was sought to be acquired for the proposed university. Ultimately, approximately, 8000 acres of the land belonging to the private landowners / agricultural landowners came to be acquired. The State Government has also handed over the possession of approximately 495 acres of land belonging to the State Government including the Gochar Lands etc. , which could have been used for the other public purpose and even for the Gochar Lands also. It is not appreciable why the Government offered such an undue favour in favour of one trust/ company. Thus, the entire acquisition proceedings and the benefits, which were proposed by the State Government were vitiated by favourism and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. [Para 8. 19 & 8.

21][1023-E-H; 1024-A, G-H] Delhi Administration vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and Ors. , (2000) 7 SCC 296: [2000] 2 Suppl. SCR 496; V. Chandrasekaran and Anr. vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. , (2012) 12 SCC 133: [2012] 10 SCR 603; S. P. Gupta vs. Union of India,1981 Supp SCC 87: [1982] SCR 365; Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161: [1984] 2 SCR 67; Public Union for Civil Liberties vs. State of T. N. ,(2013) 1 SCC 585: [2012] 9 SCR 579; Devinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 1 SCC 728: [2007] 11 SCR 475; City Montessori School vs. State of U. P. ,(2009) 14 SCC 253: [2009] 2 SCR 630 and Common Cause, A Registered Society vs. Union of India and Ors. (1999) 6 SCC 667: [1999] 3 SCR 1279 - referred to. Case Law Reference [2000] 2 Suppl. SCR 496 referred to Para 4. 5 [2012] 10 SCR 603 referred to Para 4. 6 [1982] SCR 365 referred to Para 5. 9 [1984] 2 SCR 67 referred to Para 5. 9 [2012] 9 SCR 579 referred to Para 5. 9 [2007] 11 SCR 475 referred to Para 5.

24 [2009] 2 SCR 630 referred to Para 5. 24 [1999] 3 SCR 1279 referred to Para 5. 26 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1144- 1146 of 2011. From the Judgment and Order dated 16. 11. 2010 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in WP Nos. 6863 of 2009, 10325 and 12948 of 2008. With Civil Appeal Nos. 1148-1150, 1152-1154 And 1161-1169 of 2011. N. Venkataraman, Sanjay Jain, ASGs, C. Aryama Sundaram, Prashanto Sen, Rakesh Dwivedi, Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Advs. , Dhananjaya Mishra, P. S. Sudheer, Ms. Abhisree Saujanya, Navneet Dogra, Bharat Sood, Ms. Shruti Jose, Aryan Rai, Milind Kumar, Vishal Meghwal, Arya Tripathy, Prashant Bhushan, Pranav Sachdeva, Chinmaya Mishra, Ajit Pudussery, Satvik Parikh, V. C. Bharathi, Ms. Priyanka Das, Rajat Nair, H. R. Rao, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Rupesh Kumar, Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Anukalp Jain, Raghav Sharma, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Udai Khanna, Rutwik Panda, Ms. Nikhar Berry, Ms. Anshu Malik, Abhisth Kumar, Raj Kumar Mehta, Aman Jha, Ms.

Babita Yadav, Raman Yadav, Ms. Shubha Yadav, Gaurav Prakash Shah, Rishi Tutu, Ms. Akansha, Manoj Rajput, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Shibashish Misra, Chandan Kumar Mandal, Advs. for the appearing parties. ANIL AGARWAL FOUNDATION ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Orissa dated 16. 11. 2010 passed in Writ Petition Nos.

10325 of 2008, 12948 of 2008 and 6863 of 2009 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions and has quashed the land acquisition proceedings in question including the notifications under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1894") and the awards passed in the land acquisition proceedings for acquisition of lands in favour of the appellant - beneficiary company and directed that the possession of the acquired lands shall be restored to the respective landowners and on restoration of the possession to the landowners, they shall refund the amounts received by them as compensation or otherwise in respect of their lands.

By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has also quashed the grant of Government Land in favour of the beneficiary company under Rule 5 of the Government Land Settlement Rules with a direction to the State Government to resume the lands which were granted to the beneficiary company by way of lease, the appellant - the beneficiary company and others have preferred the present appeals. 2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that before the High Court, two writ petitions were filed by the original landowners whose lands have been acquired and one writ petition was filed by way of public interest litigation on behalf of the small landholders, who could not approach the Court and also on behalf of the people of the locality. 2. 1 It is required to be noted that the dispute is with respect to the acquisition of about 6000 acres of land belonging to about 6000 families, affecting approximately 30,000 people. 3.

The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under:- 3. 1 That on 23. 06. 2006, one Mohit Kumar Rana, Principal, A. T. Kearney Limited submitted an application before the State Government stating that M/s. Vedanta Resources Limited is contemplating to set up a University in Orissa to impart education in under-graduate and post- graduate courses in Engineering, Medicine, Management, General Science and Humanities etc. It was further stated in the application that the Group had given a presentation to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Orissa during April, 2006. That after visiting different sites in Orissa, their team have selected a site on the outskirt of Puri on the Puri-Konark marine drive to be the place ideal for establishment of the University. Therefore, it was, inter alia, prayed that the Government of Orissa should make available 15,000 acres of contiguous land around Nuanai, in the district of Puri in Bhubneswar-Puri-Konark marine drive.

It was also prayed that the Government of Orissa should also coordinate the land acquisition process by appointment of a Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Group prayed that they require 1500 acres of land for Phase-I to be acquired by September, 2006 and the balance by December, 2006. Thereafter, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the Government of Orissa and Vedanta Foundation on 19. 07. 2006. The Government of Orissa confirmed the availability of contiguous land of about 8000 acres and to make endeavour to provide an additional contiguous land and other facilities as required by the Foundation. 3. 2 That a Private Limited Company incorporated in the name and style of Sterlite Foundation changed its name to Vedanta Foundation under section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 and accordingly fresh Certificate of Incorporation consequent on change of the name was issued in July, 2004.

After signing of the MOU, necessary steps were taken by the State Government for allotment of the land to the Foundation and the Vice President of the Vedanta Foundation was directed to deposit 20% of the estimated investment cost, which was subsequently reduced to 10% and necessary direction was issued to Collector, Puri to obtain administrative approval of the project from the Higher Education Department and to produce the approval along with the proposal before the Government. 3. 3 According to the State, in the meantime, the opinion of the Law Department was sought on the questions:- (a) Whether the foundation is an education foundation? and (b) Whether the land is required to be acquired for public purpose? 3. 4 Thereafter the correspondences took place between the Law Department and the Revenue and Disaster Management Department.

The Law Department observed that land can be acquired for the proposed educational scheme under the Act, 1894 if the appropriate Department of the Government sponsors a Scheme to carry out that. ANIL AGARWAL FOUNDATION ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J. ] Alternatively, the land can be acquired for an educational scheme sponsored by a Society but with the prior approval of the Government. So observing, the Law Department opined that under the Act, 1894, land can be acquired for public purpose provided Government sponsors to carry out an educational scheme or by a registered society with prior approval of the Government. Alternatively, it also opined that the Administrative Department may verify if acquisition of land can be made under section 15 of the Orissa Industrial Infrastructural Development Corporation Act, 1980.

After the aforesaid opinion was received, the Administrative Department was of the view that the second option to go through IDCO was not feasible and suggested to consider as to whether the Higher Education Department will sponsor and own the project directly and whether it would be done through a Society to be framed by the Higher Education Department. 3. 5 Thereafter, it was decided to explore the alternative of the Private Company to be converted into a public company on which, the views of the Law Department was again sought. The Law Department opined that the land can be acquired for a 'Public Company' under the Act, 1894 in accordance with Part VII. That Vedanta Foundation again changed its name to Anil Agarwal Foundation. On account of the name change, a fresh Certificate of Incorporation was obtained from the Registrar of Companies under Section 23(1) of the Companies Act on 06. 09. 2006. 3. 6 In a meeting of the Board of Directors of Anil Agarwal Foundation held on 16. 10.

2006, a resolution was passed to change the status of the company from a private company to a public company. Anil Agarwal Foundation intimated the Department of Higher Education of the change of name and structure of Vedanta Foundation on 01. 11. 2006. On 24. 11. 2006, Anil Agarwal Foundation confirmed to the Secretary, Department of Higher Education that the status of the company had been changed from a private to a public company. The Collector, Puri, on the same day, i. e. , 24. 11. 2006, intimated the Joint Secretary, Revenue Department regarding the change of status to a public company and also to the Department of Higher Education for revised administrative approval for acquisition of land for the establishment of Vedanta University. 3. 7 That thereafter notifications under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 were issued between 13. 12. 2006 to 21. 08. 2007 for 6917. 63 acres.

The said notifications inter alia indicated that the acquisition was being conducted in terms of Chapter VII of the Act, 1894. That thereafter a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was issued for 5619. 05 acres after seeking the objections under Section 5A of the Act, 1894. According to the appellant, after the awards were declared, the possession was delivered in respect of 3342 acres of acquired land and the sponsored 495 acres of Government land and the compensation of Rs. 41. 96 crores was also disbursed. 3. 8 As a vast tract of lands belonged to the poor, small farmers and the land so acquired was at a prestigious location and thousands of families of farmers were affected by the acquisition of such a vast tract of lands and that too in favour of a private company, which was mala fide subsequently converted to public company, the writ petitions were filed before the High Court challenging the entire acquisition proceedings / process. 3.

9 By the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the writ petitions including the public interest litigation by holding that :- (i) the acquisition proceedings from the stage of initiation till the date of purported awards which in fact and in law not awarded and that the alleged taking over the possession of the lands is in flagrant violation of the statutory provision of Sections 4, 5A, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, (2), 23, 24, read with the provisions under Part - VII of the Act, 1894. ; (ii) the initiation of the acquisition proceedings in favour of the beneficiary company, on the requisition made by the Vedanta Foundation by misrepresenting fact and playing fraud on the State Government, has vitiated the entire acquisition proceedings. ; (iii) that the public interest at large is affected and there is violation of rule of law.

; (iv) the Public Interest Litigation was maintainable, which was on behalf of small land holders who have no sustenance to approach this Court to fight litigation. ; (v) therefore, the acquisition proceedings in its entirety in respect of persons who have approached this Court and even who have not approached this Court are liable be quashed for the reason that there is flagrant violation of the provisions of the Act, 1894. ANIL AGARWAL FOUNDATION ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J. ] 3. 10 Thereafter, the High Court has passed the following order in terms of paragraph 69, which is as under:- "69.

In the result, we allow the writ petitions, quash the impugned land acquisition proceedings including the notification under Sections 4(1) and 6 and the award passed in the Land Acquisition Proceedings for acquisition of land in favour of the beneficiary company and direct that the possession of the acquired lands shall be resorted to the respective land owners irrespective of the fact whether they have challenged the acquisition of their lands or not. On restoration of the possession to the land owners, they shall refund the amount received by them as compensation or otherwise in respect of their lands. We also quash the grant of Government Land in favour of the Beneficiary Company under Rule 5 of the Government Land Settlement Rules with a direction to the State Government to resume the lands which were granted to the beneficiary company by way of lease.

All concerned including the State Government, the land owners and beneficiary company shall implement the aforesaid direction at an early date. " 3. 11 The impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court and the operative portion of the order in paragraph 69 of judgment are the subject matter of the present appeals. 4. Shri C. Aryama Sundaram and Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respective appellants have vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has materially erred in quashing and setting aside the entire acquisition proceedings and that too even with respect to the landowners whose lands came to be acquired, did not challenge the acquisition proceedings and/or even many of them did not raise any objections under Section 5A of the Act, 1894. 4.

1 Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respective appellants have prayed to consider the following facts in support of their submissions that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court setting aside the entire acquisition proceedings is not warranted:- (i) It is submitted that notifications under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 came to be issued between 13. 12. 2006 to 21. 08. 2007 for 6917. 63 acres; (ii) Declarations under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 were issued for 5619. 05 acres, before that the objections under Section 5A of the Act, 1894 were invited; (iii) Only 13 landowners, who were the owner of 78. 89 acres submitted their objections; with respect to 3 landowners to the extent of 25. 61 acres, objections came to be accepted and 10 objections came to be rejected. None of the 10 rejectees had approached any Court with any grievance. (iv) That the possession came to be delivered in favour of the beneficiary in respect of 3342 acres of acquired land.

(v) Possession was also delivered in respect of 495 acres of Government land. (vi) It is submitted that therefore, the possession of total 3837 acres was handed over to the beneficiary. (vii) That the beneficiary has already disbursed the compensation of Rs. 41. 96 crores. (viii) It is submitted that in addition to compensation, ex-gratia amount of Rs. 25. 13 crores was also disbursed. (ix) It is submitted that, thus, 3837 persons have received the compensation as above. It is submitted that in view of the above facts and circumstances, the High Court has materially erred in setting aside the entire acquisition proceedings. 4. 2 It is further submitted that there were a total of 9 writ petitioners before the High Court. One of them was an objector under Section 5A, however, his land was dropped from the land acquisition proceedings. He is, therefore, now only a pro forma party before this Court. 4. 2.

1 It is submitted that one of the original writ petitioners was a land loser, but not an objector under Section 5A. His land was also dropped from the land acquisition proceedings at the stage of Section 6. 4. 2. 2 Five of the original writ petitioners are land losers, but not objectors under Section 5A. 4. 2. 3 Two of the writ petitioners are PIL petitioners. ANIL AGARWAL FOUNDATION ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J. ] 4. 3 It is submitted that therefore, as on today, there are a total of 7 land losers before this Court, who hold approximately 11. 52 acres, however, none of them filed objection under Section 5A. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the beneficiary has stated at the Bar that the appellant is now willing to exclude their land from the acquisition proceedings, even though they did not file Section 5A objection. 4.

4 It is further submitted that in fact so far as the PILs before the High Court are concerned, the same ought not to have been entertained by the High Court in view of the earlier dismissal of PIL being Writ Petition (C) No. 6981 of 2008 which was filed by the PIL writ petitioner. 4. 5 It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that as observed hereinabove except few, none of the said land losers submitted any objections under Section 5A. It is submitted that as observed and held by this Court in the case of Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and Ors. , (2000) 7 SCC 296, all personal nature objections are deemed to be waived. 4. 6 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of V. Chandrasekaran and Anr. Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors.

, (2012) 12 SCC 133, it is further submitted that if the acquisition is challenged by one land loser, other cannot take advantage of it if he has not filed objection under Section 5A of the Act, 1894. 4. 7 It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respective appellants that in the present case the acquisition proceedings have attained finality, inasmuch as, after the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 and after holding inquiry under Section 11, the awards were declared and most of the landowners were paid the compensation and even the possession to the extent of 3342 acres was handed over to the beneficiary. It is submitted that therefore, when the acquisition has attained finality, awards have been made, possession taken and compensation disbursed then setting aside the entire acquisition proceedings is not desirable. 4.

8 It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the beneficiary that though initially the lands were sought to be acquired by a private company, however, thereafter the company was converted into a public limited company after following due procedure under the provisions of the Companies Act. He has taken us to the various correspondences and the orders passed converting the beneficiary company to public limited company. 4. 9 Relying upon those documents, it is vehemently submitted that therefore at the time when the Section 4 notifications were issued, the beneficiary company was already converted to a public company. Therefore, the acquisition in favour of the beneficiary company was absolutely in consonance with the provisions of the Act, 1894.

It is further submitted that the acquisition of the lands in question in favour of the beneficiary trust/ company was after a detailed consultation and taking into consideration the object and purpose of the trust / company in the field of education etc. It is submitted that the beneficiary company / trust wants and/or desirous of establishing a very renowned university in the State of Orissa. 4. 10 It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the beneficiary company that if the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is not interfered with by this Court, there shall be serious and adverse impact in implementing the appellant's project. 4. 11 It is submitted that the appellant - beneficiary has drawn up a Vision Plan for over 3837 acres of land, which is currently in their possession. It is submitted that the Vision Plan postulates a University catering to 1,00,000 students and the University would be built in a phased manner.

It is submitted that in Phase I, colleges in the field of Medicine, Liberal Arts, Science & Technology, Agriculture and Food Processing and Institute of Design would be started. 4. 12 It is submitted that eminent academicians are already on the advisory/academic board of the project. It is further submitted that adequate safeguards have been provided in Section 41 agreement that the land would be utilized for the University, and in case any portion of the land is not utilized for the University purpose, then the said portion reverts to the State Government. 4. 13 It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respective appellants that even after the acquisition of the lands in question, the rehabilitation measures have been taken as per the policy of the State Government, which are as under:- "1. R&R Policy of State Govt. followed whereunder an R&R Colony of 65.

17 acres within the acquired land has been set apart to accommodate the 230 displaced families. It may be noted that site of the R&R Colony has been chosen by the displaced families themselves. ANIL AGARWAL FOUNDATION ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J. ] 2. The project affected families are entitled to a preference for employment in the University. 3. Appellant has agreed to appoint one graduate from all land losing families as an employee. 4. Appellant has agreed to engage landless agriculture labourers as unskilled construction workers. In the event the same is not provided, then a subsistence allowance of Rs. 1500 per month would be paid to each family from date of possession to 2010. 5. Appellant has agreed to bear the expenditure for students from land losing families to study at DAV School, Puri. " 4.

14 It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that in the present case, there is a compliance of Part VII of the Act, 1894 and the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 ( hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1963"). It is submitted that in the present case, Part VII has been complied with as under:- "1. Part VII has been complied with as: (i) Section 39/40 consent has been given by the State Government. (ii) Enquiry under Section 40(2)/ Rule 4 has been carried out. (iii) Agreement has been signed by the Foundation as mandated under Section 41. (iv) Section 44B not applicable since the Appellant is a public company. " 4.

15 It is further submitted that insofar as Rules, 1963 are concerned, it is the case on behalf of the appellant that a Rule 4 enquiry is relevant only in the case when the land is identified by the company and not by the State Government and thereafter an application is made by the company to acquire the said identified land. It is submitted that in the present case, the land was not only identified by the State Government (and, therefore, not by the appellant beneficiary), but done so after substantially undertaking the enquiry as envisaged under Rule 4. In support of his above submission, Shri C. Aryama Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant trust / beneficiary has prayed to consider the following dates and events:- "(i) April 2006- A presentation was made by Vedanta Resources Ltd. to the Chief Minister of Odisha for setting up of a University in Orissa.

(Note: No Particular land identified by Vedanta in this presentation) (ii) April-June, 2006 - It was known to the State Govt. that the Vedanta group had made similar representations to few other States as well. Since the proposal presented a huge opportunity for the State, it started the process of identifying suitable locations on its own, under the leadership of its top officers, i. e. the Chief Secretary, and carried out a detailed inquiry towards identifying land keeping in mind the considerations under Rule 4 (iii) After looking at various options, the State Govt. finally zeroed in on Puri. (iv) 16. 06. 2006- The Office of the Chief Minister of Orissa convened a meeting of Secretaries of various departments in relation to the establishment of the University. At the meeting, State Govt. made a detailed presentation to the Appellant on the land identified by it in Puri.

In the said presentation, considerations regarding the suitability of the land, the extent thereof, the habitation thereunder etc. have been considered in detail. [Note: this also shows Compliance with Rule 4(1)(i) and (iii)] (v) 23. 06. 2006 - Pursuant to the aforesaid presentation by the State, the Appellant made independent visits to the site proposed in the presentation. On this basis, a letter was written to the Office of the Chief Minister by AT Kearney (a Consultant appointed by Vedanta) stating that Vedanta was interested in setting up a University in Puri. (vi) 26. 06. 2006- as per direction of the State Government, the Addl. District Magistrate, Puri and the Tahasildar, Puri made further visit to the project area. (vii) During the aforesaid exercise: a) Addl. District Magistrate, Puri and Secretary, Works also made aerial survey of the site. [Note: this also shows Compliance with Rule 4(1)(i)] ANIL AGARWAL FOUNDATION ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.

] b) Number of informal group meetings in the village between the Collector and other State Govt. officers before the acquisition proceedings were initiated. This was done to discuss various aspects of land acquisition including suitability of land, and to appraise the villagers of the purpose of land acquisition; [Note: this also shows Compliance with Rule 4(1)(i) and (iii)] c) Visits were also made for the purpose of ascertaining that minimum displacement was taking place out of the one various alternative locations d) Determination was also done to see that the Appellant is able to utilize the land, which were frozen, expeditiously; at various reviews, the requirement of land was scaled down to 6000 acres; [Note: this also shows Compliance with Rule 4(1)(iv) and (v)] e) Exercise was also undertaken to find out that the land is rain fed; not irrigated; not much good quality of agricultural land; inferior, unproductive and fallow land.

[Note: this also shows Compliance with Rule 4(1)(vi)] f) Most of the land oustees of the project area were contacted either in meetings by the Appellants to make negotiations for payment of reasonable price. [Note: this also shows Compliance with Rule 4(1)(ii)] (viii) 19. 07. 2006 - after being satisfied about the direct and indirect benefits to be accrued to the state, an MoU was signed to establish the proposed university. [Note: Compliance with Rule 4(1)(v)], namely, determination to ensure that the Appellant is able to utilize the land expeditiously (ix) 09. 08. 2006- The State Govt. appointed a Special LAO & special officer for R&R in order to coordinate the land acquisition process. (x) 29. 11. 2006 - the State Government, upon being satisfied, has accorded Administrative Approval for the project. (xi) Minutes of the 7 Core Committee meetings between 02. 09. 2006 and 07. 02. 2008 also record substantial compliance of Rule 4. " 4.

16 It is further submitted that therefore, there is a compliance with Rules 3(1) and 3(2). It is submitted that even the Rule 4 has been complied with subsequently. 4. 17 Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State Government has vehemently submitted that in the present case, there is a compliance of Sections 4, 5A, 6, 9, 11 and 12 of the Act, 1894. It is prayed to consider the following dates and events in support of compliance of the State Government with the provisions under the Act, 1894, which are as under:- "1. Notification under Section 4(1) has been published in the Official Gazette, and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality and the Collector has used public notice of the substance of Notification u/s. 4(1) by way of beating of drums at convenient places in the locality under Sec. 4(1) 2. No provision in the Act for serving show cause notice to the interested persons for inviting objections u/s. 5A.

The same is a requirement in Karnataka because of a State Amendment to the LA Act, 1894 Unfortunately, the same has been applied by the High Court vide the impugned judgment even though Orissa has no such requirement. 3. 13 objection petitions received from 6 villages for an area measuring Ac 78. 89. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer has given notice to the objectors for hearing u/s 5-A. Heard the petitioners. Has forwarded the objection petitions to Govt. in the Revenue Department through the District Collector together with his report and the record of the proceedings. In fact, 3 of the 13 objections were allowed (25. 61 acres). None of the 10 rejectees approached any Court with any grievance. 4. State Govt. has given public notice of declaration under Section 6(2). 5. The Collector has served notices u/s. 9 (1) in the village and to the interested persons u/s. 9(3) calling upon them to file claims to compensation, as evident in the LA records. ANIL AGARWAL FOUNDATION ETC. ETC. v.

STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J. ] 6. After making enquiry into their respective interests, claims to compensation and objections to the area, which the interested persons have stated pursuant to the notices u/s. 9, the Collector u/s. 11 has passed Award on the true area of the land, the compensation allowed and the apportionment of compensation. 7. In addition to compensation under the LA Act, 1894, exgratia amount of Rs. 1 lakh per acre subject to a minimum compensation of Rs. 2 lakh acre was to be paid as approved by the RPDAC (formed as per the State R&R Policy). This is in addition to various other benefits to be provided, which have been enumerated at (I). B of this Note at Page 3 above. 8. Collector has given notice of his Award to such interested persons u/s. 12(2) of the LA Act 1894, as evident in the LA records. " 4.

18 It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that in fact the project does not fall in any prohibited area. It is beyond the coastal regulatory zone. The distance of the sea from the proposed Vedanta University is more than 2000 meters. The Balukhand Wildlife Sanctuary is separated from the proposed site by a highway / Puri-Konark Marine Drive. It is submitted that the Sanctuary is on the seaward side, whereas the proposed site is on the landward side. 4. 19 It is submitted that there are a number of private institutions and organizations which are on the same side of the highway as the proposed university, along with the entire village of Beldala with a large population. It is submitted that Nuanai which flows through the proposed site is not a river as alleged. It is submitted that it comprises of two manmade channels (Gabakund Cut and Siar Cut).

It is submitted that the land was acquired by the State Government for constructing these channels. The ownership of these two channels continues to lie with the Water resources Department of the Government of Orissa. It is submitted that in any event, all environmental requirements would be scrutinized and looked into by the MOEF while granting environmental clearance. 4. 20 Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respective appellants have taken us to the findings by the High Court and their response, which by and large have been refereed to hereinabove. 4. 21 Making above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present appeals. 5. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective respondents - original writ petitioners. 5.

1 It is submitted that the instant case involves acquisition of about 6000 acres of land belonging to about 6000 families, and thus, involving displacement of approximately 30,000 people. It is submitted that the Government of Orissa has showered huge largesse on the appellant company by acting in a manifestly arbitrary manner and flouting all the mandatory provisions of the Act, 1894 and the Rules, 1963 by pre-determining the acquisition of the concerned land in favour of the appellant company. It is submitted that the said illegal action of the Government of Orissa gives rise to sufficient cause for espousal of public interest. It is submitted that the action of the State in allotting such a huge tracts of land admeasuring 6000 acres and that too in the prime location, which was nothing but a clear case of favourism and arbitrariness, which has been rightly set aside by the High Court. 5.

2 It is submitted that the land acquisition proceedings including the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 and the awards passed in the land acquisition proceedings for acquisition of land in favour of the beneficiary company have rightly been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court by the impugned judgment and order, which does not require any interference of this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 5. 3 It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners - original landowners / land losers that in the present case the land was identified by the appellant company, and not by the Government as is evident from the chronology of dates and events and the Note Sheet of the Principal Secretary of the Chief Minister.

It is submitted that the Note sheet clearly shows, inter alia, that the appellant company asked the Government of Orissa to specifically make available for it 15,000 acres of contiguous land around Nuanai, Puri district in Bhubaneshwar-Puri-Konark by 15. 06. 2006. 5. 4 It is submitted that even the relevant clauses in the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 19. 07. 2006 also show that the land was identified by the Company and not by the Government. It is ANIL AGARWAL FOUNDATION ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J. ] submitted that as per the MoU dated 19. 07. 2006, it was Vedanta Foundation that proposed to set up the university along with a self- contained township near Puri in Orissa with an estimated cost of Rs. 15,000 crores. It is submitted that in the said MoU also there was a refence to the proposed location. It is submitted that the Government of Orissa just confirmed the availability of the contiguous land of about 8000 acres. [Clause 5 of the MoU] 5.

5 It is submitted that even, the Section 41 agreement executed between the Government of Orissa and the Anil Aggarwal Foundation also shows that the land was identified by the company and not by the Government as the said agreement says that the Company intended to establish Vedanta University near Puri and had applied to the Government of Orissa for the acquisition of the land described in the schedule thereunder, written and delineated on the map annexed therein whereon the company intended to establish Vedanta University. 5. 6 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners - original landowners / land losers that the Government of Orissa, despite knowing fully well that the Vedanta Foundation had no prior track record in the field of education, included several clauses in the MoU dated 19. 07.

2006, providing undue largesse to Vedanta like total autonomy to Vedanta University and its authorities with regard to administration, admission, fee structure, curriculum and faculty selection; proposed university to have complete immunity from any reservation laws of the State Government, all assistance in getting regulatory approvals from UGC, AICTE etc. It is submitted that even, as per the said MoU, the Government agreed to provide 4-lane road from Bhubaneshwar city to the proposed site and the Government of Orissa shall make the land use/ zoning plan in the 5 km radius from the university boundary only after Consultation with Vedanta. It is submitted that the Government also promised to exempt all state levies/ taxes/ duties namely, viz. VAT, Works Contract Tax, Stamp Duty and Entry tax on R&D equipment, educational aids, lab equipment and tools, and construction materials from the date of signing of the MoU.

It is submitted that the Government also promised to assist the Foundation in obtaining NOC from SPCB and all clearances from the Central Government. It is submitted that the Government also promised to assist the Foundation in arranging rapid EIA and EMP for the project. It is submitted that the Government also promised to provide extraordinary huge amounts of electricity and water. It is submitted that the aforesaid role of the Government shows clear favourism in favour of a private trust / company - Vedanta Foundation. 5. 7 It is submitted that the Government of Orissa didn't apply its mind regarding the genuineness of the appellant company's demand of 10. 000 acres for building the campus. It is submitted that it is to be noted that one of the largest universities in the world - Stanford University has lesser contiguous area of around 8,100 acres.

It is submitted that in the present case, the Government of Orissa confirmed the availability of 8000 acres and promised to provide additional contiguous land as required by the appellant Company. It is submitted that at the relevant time, the Foundation was a private company with 3 members of a family and limited by guarantee of Rs. 5,000/-, and no prior track record in education sector. It is submitted that while accepting the request by the Vedanta Foundation, the Government did not consider the prior track record and did not consider why the Vedanta group has been repeatedly indicted by various Governments / authorities / courts/tribunals and agencies for severe violations of mining laws, environmental laws, causing pollution, and violation of human rights in its mining projects in Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Goa and Karnataka. 5.

8 Taking us to the observations made by the High court made in paras 63 to 67 of the impugned judgment, it is submitted that the High Court has given cogent reasons and findings to hold that the land acquisition proceedings were carried out by the Government in a manifestly arbitrary manner and had defeated the public interest. It is submitted that therefore, the High Court has rightly entertained the Public Interest Litigations holding that the initiation of the acquisition proceedings in favour of the beneficiary company, on the requisition made by the Vedanta Foundation by misrepresentation of facts and by playing fraud on the State Government, which has vitiated the entire acquisition proceedings. It is submitted that the High Court has rightly observed and held that the public interest at large is affected and there is violation of rule of law. 5.

9 Insofar as the submission on behalf of the appellant that only 7 people filed section 5A objections out of approximately 6000 people, who were losing their lands is concerned, it is submitted that the fact that only 7 people filed their objections itself shows that the landowners were either unaware of the land acquisition proceedings and/or were too weak, poor and disadvantaged and not in a position to even file ANIL AGARWAL FOUNDATION ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J. ] objections with the Collector. Relying upon the decisions of this Court in the case of S. P. Gupta Vs. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87; Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161 and Public Union for Civil Liberties Vs. State of T. N. , (2013) 1 SCC 585, it is submitted that the High Court has rightly entertained the Public Interest Litigation petitions and has rightly quashed the entire acquisition proceedings.

It is submitted that the High Court has rightly entertained and allowed the Public Interest Litigation petitions as by the acquisition of such a huge tract of land to the extent of 6000 acres, affecting 30,000 people, who were too weak, poor and disadvantaged, who could not approach the court for legal redress. 5. 10 It is submitted that apart from Public Interest Litigations, the land losers had also challenged the acquisition. It is submitted that in the present case, the High Court has rightly quashed the entire acquisition proceedings. It has been found that the Hon'ble Courts in various cases have repeatedly quashed entire acquisitions where illegalities go to the root of the matter. It is further submitted that even as rightly observed and held by the High Court, the entire acquisition proceedings were suffering from arbitrariness and in Violation of the Act, 1894 and the statutory Rules in the land acquisition process. 5.

11 It is submitted that the appellant is a private company, and not a public company. It is submitted that admittedly, the appellant claims that it was a private company registered under Section 25 limited by guarantee with a license issued by Central Government. However, according to the said license itself, any change to Articles of Association is required to be approved by the Central Government. It is submitted that herein, the resolution, dated 23. 11. 2006, altering the Articles of Association by the appellant to convert it into a public company and increasing the members to 7 was not approved by the Central Government as per the License issued to it under Section 25 and hence, the company never became a public company. It is submitted that the aforesaid is evident even from the affidavit filed on behalf of the Registrar of Companies filed before the High Court. He has taken us to the relevant paragraphs namely paragraph Nos.

9, 10 and 12 of the affidavit filed by the Registrar of Companies dated 15. 10. 2008 filed before the High Court. It is further submitted that the reliance of Vedanta on the letter dated 22. 11. 2006 from the Ministry of Company Affairs is not any evidence of the company becoming a public company. It is submitted that it merely says that Vedanta's "request for permission under Section 25(8) of the Companies Act 1956 is hereby considered of conversion of the status of the Company from Private to a Public Company". It is submitted that the same was subject to compliance of the provisions of Sections 23, 31, 189(2) and 192 of the Companies Act, 1956, which are not complied with at all. 5. 12 It is submitted that that is why Articles of Association have not been produced before the Core committee of the Government without which no one could understand the nature of the company. It is submitted that the nature of company, i. e.

, whether it is public or private depends upon the nature of holding of shares. It is submitted that if the members hold the shares jointly, then as per the proviso to Section 3(c) of the Act, 1956, they shall be treated only as a single member. Further, Section 12(5) of Act, 1956 as to the accountability of its members could not be ascertained even for Section 25 registered company. Accordingly, the members, as can be seen from Board Meeting minutes, all the Agarwals seem to hold the company jointly, and therefore, it could only be a private company. 5. 13 It is submitted that, however, in appellant's letter dated 10. 02. 2011, the appellant admitted that they don't have any shares and is a company registered on guarantee under Section 25 of the Act, 1956. It is submitted that when there being no shares, the pattern of holding the shares jointly or severally cannot be ascertained and hence the company could only be a private company. 5.

14 It is submitted that even in the agreement executed on 31. 07. 2007, the appellant company mentions itself only as a company but do not state itself to be a public company. It is submitted that even the appellant failed to file prospectus or statement in lieu of the same in Schedule IV as mandated under Section 44 of the Act, 1956. It is submitted that Schedule IV warrants disclosure of interest of each director in the company and share holding pattern, without which it is not possible to ascertain the nature of company. It is submitted that as public company is any company other than a private company, share holding pattern is a must to examine the compliance of proviso to Section 3(c) of 1956 Act. 5. 15 It is submitted that a public company shall, in the context of Act, 1894, require provision in the Articles of Association enabling any public to purchase shares to remove the basis of private company. It is ANIL AGARWAL FOUNDATION ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [M. R.

SHAH, J. ] submitted that the scope of Section 44B should be understood on its intention. A company constituted by three family members cannot be legally accepted as a public company if its members are increased to 7 numbers by adding sons and daughters. It is submitted that therefore, the phrase "public company" should be construed by taking into consideration the scope and purport of Section 44B of the Act, 1894. It is submitted that that is why an enquiry is contemplated under Section 40 and the Rules framed therefor. 5. 16 It is further submitted that even Clause 13 of the Section 41 Agreement mandates not to pay more than 2/3rd, i. e. , 66. 66% of the compensation worked out which is in blatant violation of Section 17(3A) (3) which mandates to pay 80% of the compensation. It is submitted that even for public purpose, the Act mandates to pay 80% before entering / taking possession, but for private company, the aforesaid Agreement mandates not to pay more than 66.

67% which is impermissible. 5. 17 It is submitted that even Section 41 Agreement was executed on false premise as no such enquiry as mandated under Section 40 of the Act, 1894 r/w Rules, 1963 was conducted. It is submitted that therefore Section 41 Agreement was a fraudulent exercise of power to give undue favour to the appellant. 5. 18 It is further submitted that even otherwise, admittedly, at the time of execution of MoU with the Appellant on 19. 07. 2006, the appellant was a private company and hence, the proposal ought not to have been entertained at all but should have been rejected outrightly. It is submitted that however, the Government showed undue interest and the entire Government Machinery worked hastily and acquired the lands using emergency provision, i. e. , Section 17 of the Act. It is submitted that even on 30. 07. 2007, the company was not a public company.

Therefore, entering into MoU/ Agreement with the appellant, a private company, which formed the basis for land acquisition is violative of the statutory bar under Sections 40(1)(aa) and 40(1)(b) and 44-B and hence, void ab initio. 5. 19 It is further submitted that the appellant's reliance on Collector's letter, dated 25. 07. 2008, which was after the Section 6 notification, is untenable. It is submitted that the inquiry and report of the Collector had to proceed before the Section 6 notification. It is further submitted that even no inquiry was conducted under the Rules, 1963, which has been established and proved from the response by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the RTI query dated 27. 05. 2008. It is submitted that in response to the said RTI query, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has responded that; "There was no such inquiry under Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963". 5.

20 It is further submitted that even in the present case, no Committee / Core Committee was constituted by the State Government from among the persons notified under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 and clauses (i) and (ii) of the Rules. 5. 21 It is submitted that in the present case, the 'Core Committee' constituted by the Department of Higher Education, Government of Orissa vide the notification dated 17. 08. 2007, was setup for the expressly stated purpose of "coordinating activities relating to lease of Government land and acquisition of private land, facilitating rehabilitation of displaced families as per policy, expediting accreditation from relevant statutory bodies as UGC AICTE, MCI, BCI etc. enactment of an Act for the University, facilitating issues of no objection certificate from State Pollution Control Board and other bodies and expediting provision of road, water, electricity and telephone connectivity required for the University, etc.

" It is submitted that the scope, composition and purpose for establishment of the aforesaid Core Committee is completely different from the scope. composition and purpose of the Land Acquisition Committee envisaged under Rule 3 of the Rules, 1963. This is because while the Land Acquisition Committee is required to be established for assisting the government in evaluating the feasibility and desirability of the proposal from a company for land acquisition, the Core Committee was set out with the objective of facilitating the land acquisition process with the Government of Orissa having already pre- determined the feasibility and desirability of the acquisition in clear contravention of the statutory provisions. 5. 22 It is submitted that the appellant's argument that enquiry under Rule 4 of the Rules, 1963 was not required / relevant in the present case as the land was identified by the Government and not by the company, does not hold water.

It is submitted that in the present case, the land had clearly been identified by the appellant company since the very inception. It is submitted that even otherwise, whether the land is identified by the company or the Government, the statutory Rule 4 cannot be dispensed with at all and the collector is bound to inquire into all the ANIL AGARWAL FOUNDATION ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J. ] things mentioned in Rule 4 of the Rules, 1963, otherwise the whole purpose of the Rules, 1963 and Part VII of the Act, 1894 will be defeated. It is further submitted that even the declarations under Section 6 of the Act, 1894, for most of the villages were made prior to the agreement under Section 41 of the Act was executed.

It is submitted that the same is in complete contravention and breach of Rule 4 (4)(ii) of the Rules, 1963, which provides that no declaration shall be made by the appropriate Government under Section 6 of the Act unless the agreement under section 41 of the Act has been executed by the company. It is submitted that even the same is also in clear violation of Section 39 of the Act, 1894 which stipulates that the provisions of Sections 6 of the Act, 1894 shall not be put in force in order to acquire the land for any company unless the Company has executed the agreement under Section 41 of the Act, 1894. It is submitted that therefore, as rightly observed and held by the High Court that the entire land acquisition proceedings is void and hence all consequential proceedings were also void ab initio. 5.

23 It is further submitted by the learned counsel that in the present case, right from the very beginning and from the time of signing of the MoU, the Government of Orissa had made its mind that the land will be available to Vedanta even though the mandatory requirements of Act, 1894 and the Rules, 1963 were yet to be complied with, which might have led to the possible failure of the acquisition as the enquiries provided therein are meant to exclude acquisition of lands if certain mandatory requirements are not met with. 5. 24 Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel has heavily relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 1 SCC 728 and City Montessori School Vs. State of U. P. , (2009) 14 SCC 253 in support of his submission that as observed and held by this Court Part VII of the Act, 1894 and the Rules, 1963 require strict compliance.

It is submitted that in the present case, all the procedures and the requirements of Part VII of the Act, 1894 and the relevant Rules, 1963 are not complied with. 5. 25 It is further submitted by Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel that in the present case, the inquiry and the objection under Section 5A of the Act, 1894 have not been properly complied with and/ or adhered to. It is submitted that it was absolutely critical for the Collector to have properly heard the objections from the affected people in accordance with Section 5A in relation to desirability of the proposed project, irrespective of the number of objections received and should have made a report in accordance thereof. It is submitted that in the present case, the said procedure has not been followed by the Collector. 5. 26 It is further submitted that even otherwise the impugned land acquisition is in violation of environmental norms.

It is submitted that the acquisition of the lands in question in favour of the beneficiary company, is bad in law in view of the fact that by Gazette Notification dated 23. 04. 1984 published by the State Government, the nearby area of the acquired lands has been declared as Wildlife Sanctuary and two rivers, namely, "Nuanai'&'Nala' are flowing in the acquired lands according to the satellite map issued by the Forest Department. It is submitted that the control of the said rivers will be under the said private company if the acquisition proceedings are held to be valid in law thereby the doctrine of public trust as held by this Court will be violated.

It is submitted that in the case of Common Cause, A Registered Society, (1999) 6 SCC 667, this Court held that natural resources such as air, water, forest, lakes, rivers and wildlife are public properties entrusted to the Government for their safe and proper use and proper protection and the doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. It is submitted that even vast tract of lands belonging to the State Government including Gochar lands, on the basis of requisition made for Vedanta Company, had been de-reserved and divested from the purpose for which it was reserved and had been made available for grant in favour of the beneficiary company by way of lease. It is submitted that even the proper procedure has not been followed for grant of lease. 5.

27 It is further submitted that even the subsequent conversion of a private company to public company was mala fide action/act. It is submitted that the entire exercise was hurriedly done to convert the appellant company from private to purportedly public company after it was already decided to acquire land for it and after the Law department during acquisition proceedings observed and opined that the land may be acquired only for a public company and thereby hurriedly the Articles of Association and Memorandum of Association were changed in violation of the conditions of the license granted to the appellant company and without first informing the concerned authority of the change, which shows that the exercise was expressly taken up to defeat the object of Part VII of Act, 1894. It is further submitted that currently the possession ANIL AGARWAL FOUNDATION ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.

] of land is still with the landowners and most of whom are agriculturists and their agricultural lands acquired are the only source of livelihood. It is submitted that in the present case, as submitted hereinabove, approximately 6000 families and 30,000 people are likely to be affected, if the land is taken away, then it will cause them great hardship which can never be compensated in monetary terms. 5. 28 Making above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeals. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on going through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that while quashing and setting aside the entire land acquisition proceedings, the High Court had in fact identified 15 issues, which are as under:- Issues Issue No.

1 Whether the Anil Agarwal Foundation, The Beneficiary Company, is a public company in terms of the definition under section 3(1)(IV) of the Companies Act, 1956 and can the private guarantee limited company be converted to public company under section 25 of the Companies Act? Issue No. 2 Whether the State Government can acquire the lands in question in favour of the beneficiary company in exercise of its eminent domain power for the purpose of establishment of the proposed Vedanta University (not in existence) in view of Section 44-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? Issue No. 3 Whether the State Government on the requisition of Vedanta Foundation could have initiated the acquisition proceedings in favour of the beneficiary company by issuing notifications under Section 4(1) of the LA Act without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 39, 41 and 42 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Rules 3(2) and 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963? Issue No.

4 (A) Whether the Collector was required to conduct an inquiry as contemplated under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act even in the absence of filing objections to the show cause notice along with preliminary notification proposing to acquire the lands of the land owners/interested persons in favour of a beneficiary company? and (B) Whether the Collector was required to submit his report to the State Govt. in relation to certain matters as referred to under Clause (1) of Rule-4 as it is mandatory for further action under Section 6 of the LA Act, 1894 in view of the fact that the acquisition will entail serious civil consequences of the owners of the lands? Issue No. 5 (A) Whether the owners/ interested persons of the land in question have waived or acquiesced their rights for not filing objections to the preliminary notifications?

And (B) Whether there is any delay and latches in these writ petitions and for that reason they are not entitled to the relief as prayed in these writ petitions? Issue No. 6 & 7 6. Whether the Core Committee appointed by the State Govt. is in compliance with the provision under Section 40, sub section (2) of the LA Act, 1894 and it has conducted an inquiry and submitted its report to the State Govt. for its consideration and compliance of the above provisions of the Act can dispense with the Rules 3 & 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 for declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act? and 7. Whether the State Government has complied with Rules 3(2) and 4 of the Rules, 1963 and the Collector has submitted his report to the State Government and the same is forwarded to the Committee constituted for this purpose and whether it has consulted the Committee before declaring the lands notified & published under Section 6 notifications? Issue No. 8 & 9 8.

Whether the beneficiary company has executed Memorandum of Understanding as required under Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act with the State Government giving undertaking as provided under sub sections (1), (2) & (3) of the said section of the Act and the same is published in the official gazette as required under Section 42 thereof? And 9. Whether the Memorandum of Understanding dated 19/07/2006 executed by the beneficiary company can be construed as a valid agreement as provided under Section 41 of the LA Act for acquiring the lands in question in favour of the beneficiary company? Issue No. 10 Whether the Collector has determined approx. amount of compensation to be awarded and deposited as required under the provisions and by following the procedure as provided under Section 23 and 24 of the LA Act? Issue no.

11 Whether awards are passed by the Collector in compliance with Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the LA Act and award notices as required under Section 12 (2) of the Act are issued and served upon the owners/interested persons and thereafter possession of the lands has been taken by the State Government under Section 16 of the LA Act and transferred in favour of the company? ANIL AGARWAL FOUNDATION ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J. ] Issue No. 12 (A) Whether the impugned notifications acquiring the lands in the locality is legal and valid, as certain lands of them are declared for Wildlife Sanctuary according to Gazette notification dated 23. 4. 1984 and two rivers viz. "Nuanai" and "Nala" are flowing in the lands in question according to satellite map issued by the Department of Forest, would it affect the ecology and environment in the locality?

And (B) If so, whether it amounts to violation of provisions of Wildlife (Protection) Act; Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act as well as Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) act, and Environment Protection Act of 1986 and for this reason would it affect either the public interest or public injury or violation of Rule of Law? Issue Nos. 13, 14 & 15 13. Whether the PIL must succeed if the question Nos. 12(A) & (B) are answered in favour of the appellants and for violation of any provisions of Land Acquisition Act as well as Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963? And 14. Whether the acquisition proceedings in its entirety liable to be quashed, if the petitioners have made out a case, by exercising judicial review power by this Court? And 15. What relief petitioners are entitled? 7. After elaborate consideration on the aforesaid issues, the High court has answered the respective 15 questions as under:- Issues Findings / Answers given by the High Court Issue No.

1 i) As per the details mentioned in Form No. 32 filed on 19. 07. 2006, Whether the Anil Agarwal the Petitioner has only 3 directors Foundation, The Beneficiary on its board and less than 7 Company, is a public company in members, which is less than what terms of the definition under section is required for a public limited 3(1)(IV) of the Companies Act, company under Section 12 (b) of 1956 and can the private guarantee the Companies Act, 1956. limited company be converted to ii) The Petitioner had tried to change public company under section 25 of its status from a private to a public the Companies Act? company but the same was subject to compliance of Sections 23, 31, 189 (2) and 192 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Petitioner had not furnished certified copy of the memorandum and articles of association as required under the provisions of Section 31 (2A) and had therefore not acquired the status of a public company.

iii) The Foundation is a section 25 company, and therefore not a public limited company. Issue No. 2 i) Acquisition of lands for a private Whether the State Government can company is not permissible except acquire the lands in question in for the purpose mentioned in favour of the beneficiary company Section 40(1)(a) of the Act as in exercise of its eminent domain stated under Section 44-B of the power for the purpose of Act. Therefore, the acquisition in establishment of the proposed question is illegal. Vedanta University (not in ii) The University in question is non- existence) in view of Section 44-B existent as no University has come of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? into existence under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or under the Orissa Universities Act. iii) The State Government has promulgated an Ordinance to establish an University which is untenable in law. Issue No.

3 i) Section 4(1) notification in favour of Whether the State Government on the beneficiary company were the requisition of Vedanta made on the basis of a requisition Foundation could have initiated the filed by Vedanta Foundation, but acquisition proceedings in favour of not Anil Agarwal Foundation, the beneficiary company by issuing which is the beneficiary company. notifications under Section 4(1) of ii) No enquiry has been made by the the LA Act without complying with State Government in terms of the mandatory provisions of Section Rule-4 read with Rule 3 of the 39, 41 and 42 of the Land Land Acquisition (Companies) Acquisition Act read with Rules Rules, 1963 3(2) and 4 of the Land Acquisition iii) Acquisition of lands by publishing (Companies) Rules, 1963?

Section 4(1) Notifications in favour of the beneficiary company is vitiated in law for the reason that before putting the provisions of Section 4 to 16 and 18 to 37 in order to acquire land no previous consent of the State Government under Section 39 was there and such consent shall not be given unless the company has executed the agreement under Section 41 of the Act. iv) Declaration under Section 6 has been made by the State Government without consulting the Land Acquisition Committee to be constituted under Rule- 3 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963. ANIL AGARWAL FOUNDATION ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J. ] Issue No.

4 i) The order sheet of the records maintained by Collector discloses (A) Whether the Collector was required that the Collector has not caused to conduct an inquiry as public notice, by way of beat of contemplated under Section 5-A of drums, of the substance of such the Land Acquisition Act even in notification to be given at the absence of filing objections to convenient places in the locality. the show cause notice along with preliminary notification proposing ii) No notice along with the to acquire the lands of the land preliminary notification was owners/interested persons in favour issued and served upon either to of a beneficiary company? the owners/ interested persons of the acquired lands as required in and law. Therefore, the question of filling of objections by the land (B) Whether the Collector was required owners interested persons didn't to submit his report to the State arise. Govt.

in relation to certain matters as referred to under Clause (1) of iii) The Collector has not submitted Rule-4 as it is mandatory for further report under Section 5-A of the action under Section 6 of the LA Act or Rule 4 of the Land Act, 1894 in view of the fact that Acquisition (Companies) Rules, the acquisition will entail serious 1963. civil consequences of the owners of the lands? Issue No. 5 i) Enquiry under Section 5A is (A) Whether the owners/ interested mandatory whether or not the land persons of the land in question have owner makes an objection in waived or acquiesced their rights writing for not filing objections to the ii) This point has not been answered preliminary notifications? by the Hon'ble High Court. And (B) Whether there is any delay and latches in these writ petitions and for that reason they are not entitled to the relief as prayed in these writ petitions? Issue No. 6 & 7 Declaration under Section 6 has been made by the State 6.

Whether the Core Committee Government without consulting appointed by the State Govt. is in the Land Acquisition Committee compliance with the provision to be constituted under Rule-3 of under Section 40, sub section (2) of the Land Acquisition (Companies) the LA Act, 1894 and it has Rules, 1963. conducted an inquiry and submitted its report to the State Govt. for its consideration and compliance of the above provisions of the Act can dispense with the Rules 3 & 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 for declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act? and 7. Whether the State Government has complied with Rules 3(2) and 4 of the Rules, 1963 and the Collector has submitted his report to the State Government and the same is forwarded to the Committee constituted for this purpose and whether it has consulted the Committee before declaring the lands notified & published under Section 6 notifications? Issue No.

8 & 9 i) MOU is not in conformity with sub sections (1) to (4A) of Section 41. 8. Whether the beneficiary company has ii) There is non-compliance with executed Memorandum of Section 39 of the Act as there is Understanding as required under no formal agreement executed Section 41 of the Land Acquisition under Section 41. Act with the State Government giving undertaking as provided under sub sections (1), (2) & (3) of the said section of the Act and the same is published in the official gazette as required under Section 42 thereof? And 9. Whether the Memorandum of Understanding dated 19/07/2006 executed by the beneficiary company can be construed as a valid agreement as provided under Section 41 of the LA Act for acquiring the lands in question in favour of the beneficiary company? Issue No. 10 The compensation to be awarded Whether the Collector has has been determined by the determined approx.

amount of Collector on the basis of sales compensation to be awarded and statistics secured from District deposited as required under the Sub Registrar and the value of the provisions and by following the land has been shown in the sales procedure as provided under statistics has been treated as the Section 23 and 24 of the LA Act? market value and awarded the same as compensation. Issue no. 11 i) Notices under S