Supreme Court of India
SIEL FOODS & FERTILIZERS INDUSTRIESversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2010 INSC 168
- Decided
- 25 March 2010
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- K G BALAKRISHNAN
Holding
The Supreme Court affirmed that the earlier orders stand, the additional FAR is the only compensation, ODA is not required to acquire the surrendered land under Section 15, and any change in use or transfer of the land requires court permission, rendering the review petitions untenable.
Summary
The Supreme Court reviewed petitions filed by polluting industries that had been ordered to surrender portions of their land for green belts after relocation from Delhi. The petitioners argued that the Delhi Development Authority (ODA) must acquire the surrendered land under Section 15 of the Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957 and pay monetary compensation, contending that the additional floor‑area‑ratio (FAR) granted was insufficient. The Court held that the earlier orders of 10 May 1996, 8 July 1996, 4 December 1996 and 28 April 2000, which provided additional FAR as the sole compensation and declared the surrendered land to be held in trust for community use, are not reviewable. ODA is not bound to acquire the land under Section 15, and any diversion of the land for non‑green‑belt purposes requires prior permission of the District Court and the High Court. The transfer of surrendered land to the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation was declared impermissible. All review petitions and related applications were dismissed, subject to clarifications on trust‑account handling and compensation sharing if the land is later alienated.
Issues considered
- The earlier Supreme Court orders directing land surrender without monetary compensation are reviewable.
- Whether ODA must acquire surrendered land under Section 15 of the Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957 and pay market value.
- Whether the additional FAR granted constitutes adequate compensation for surrendered land.
- Whether the transfer of surrendered land to the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation is permissible.
- What compensation, if any, is due to landowners if the surrendered land is later used for purposes other than green belts.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Delhi Development Authorityland surrendergreen beltadditional FARcompensationpublic interest litigationenvironmental lawtrustreview petitionSection 15Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
Judgment
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 809
SIEL FOODS & FERTILIZERS INDUSTRIES .A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Review Petition (C) Nos. 1200 of 2002
IN B
IA NO. 22, 36 AND 129
IN
W. P. (C) NO. 4677 OF 1985 Etc.
MARCH 25, 2010
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND
c
J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.]
Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957 - s. 15 -
Shifting/relocation of polluting industries from Delhi - Land D
available as a result of shifting - Direction of Court by various
orders to use the land partly by land-owner and a part of it to
. be surrendered to Development Authority (DOA) for
development of green belt - Land-owners time and again
taking plea that the authorities should acquire the land under E
DOA Act and pay compensation - Court in lieu of monetary
compensation giving additional FAR to the /and-owners -
Petition for review of the previous orders of the Court taking
plea that ODA could not take the land without resorting to
compulsory acquisition - Held: Review not maintainable -
Plea regarding acquisition repeatedly rejected by Court - The F
land surrendered by land-owners need not be acquired and
additional FAR was the only compensation - The Land is
surrendered by the land-owners to ODA in Trust for the
purpose of development of green belt and for the benefit of
the community - If ODA in deviation to the Trust, uses the G
land for any other purpose, the land-owner entitled to
compensation - Since the land-owner already received some
consideration in the form of additional f AR, ODA and land-
809 H
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.
A owner to share the compensation at 50% each - Any change
in use of the sun-endered land to be only after prior permission
of Delhi High Court - Transfer of the land, surrendered by one
of the applicants, by DOA to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation is
not permissible - Urban Development - Environmental Law
B - Trust.
In a Public Interest Litigation (M.C. Mehta Vs. Union
of India & Ors.), series of orders were passed regarding
shifting and relocating several hazardous, noxious, large
C and heavy industries, causing extensive pollution, from
Delhi. Supreme Court monitored the matter and directed
the authorities concerned to examine the question
regarding utilization of land, made available as a
relocation/shifting of industries.
D Supreme Coµ rt passed order dated 10.05.1996 taking
the view that lind
' surrendered
.
should be used for the
development of green belts and open spaces. The land
owner would develop part of the land for his own use and
surrender the remaining land for the use of community
E at large to Delhi Development Authority (ODA). The extent
of land for community use and for personal benefit of
land-owners was also specified.
By another order dated 08.07 .1996, the Court
F directed that the use of the land would be permitted in
terms of the order dated 10.05.1996. By further order
dated 04.12.1996, it was clarified that the order dated
10.05.1996 regarding the land-use was to be applicable
for relocating industries as well as to those who decide
to close down and not to relocate.
G
Some of the industries filed IAs praying for direction
to ODA to acquire the land under Delhi Development
Authority Act, 1957 (ODA Act) or Land Acquisition Act,
1894, which was required to be surrendered. The IAs
H were dismissed as withdrawn.
SIEL FOODS & FERTILIZERS INDUSTRIES v. UNION 811
OF INDIA & ORS.
The Court by order dated 28.04.2000 directed that as A
a compensation, FAR would stand increased to 'one and
a half times of the permissible FAR under the Master Plan'
and held that ODA was not bound to acquire the land u/
s. 15 of ODA Act.
B
Another attempt was made by the industries by
raising the issue regarding compensation in an IA filed
by ODA, wherein the plea was rejected ..
The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking
review of the orders dated 10.05.1996, 08.07.1996, C
04.12.1996 and 28.04.2000, primarily taking the plea that
ODA should resort to compulsory acquisition u/s. 15 of
DOA Act.
The applicant in IA No. 1914 of 2006 and IA No. 2205 D
of 2007 contended that the land surrendered by it to DOA
was further transferred to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation on
payment of a premium and other amount and that such
transfer was impermissible and that the monetary gain
was required to be paid over to the land-owner.
E
Dismissing the petitions, the Court
HELD: 1. The orders dated 10.5.1996, 8.7.1996,
4.12.1996 and 28.4.2000 clearly demonstrate that the
owners of land/industries were given a fair hearing before F
passing the order on 10.5.1996. The petitioners had now
raised these very contentions that their lands will have
to be acquired and that they are entitled to get reasonable
compensation when their land was taken over. All these
pleas had been repeatedly rejected by this Court. [Para G
13) [831-E-G]
2. Some of the review petitions have been filed after
dismissal or withdrawal of the earlier petition by the very
same petitioners seeking almost the very same reliefs.
H
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.
A Therefore, such petitions are prima facie not maintainable
and the pleas raised by these petitioners to review the
earlier order passed by this Court cannot be considered.
[Para 15] (833-F-G]
3. The order dated 10.5.1996 was passed to give
8
effect to the Master Plan, to save the city and in public
interest. Therefore, by surrendering a part of the land, the
owners were not only benefitting the community, but
themselves. The records clearly show that before the
order dated 10.5.1996 was passed, the question what
C should be the compensation for the surrendered lands
was specifically raised and considered. It was made clear
that additional FAR will be in lieu of any morietary
compensation for the land to be surrendered and
dedicated to ODA for community use, for development of
D green belts and lung spaces. Therefore, it is evident that
the order dated 10.5.1996 clearly intended that the land
to be surrendered would vest in trust in DOA for the
benefit of the community and the additional FAR was the
only compensation for such surrendered land for
E community benefit and there would be no further
compensation. Contentions similar to the contentions
now raised were rejected by this Court by order dated
28.4.2000. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to
again review all these orders or take a different view.
F [Para 14] (833-B-E]
4. The land dedicated by private owners to the
community, if acquired for any other purpose, or is
diverted to any other use by DOA (as for example for
putting up constructions or for sale or lease for
G development or construction), the land-owner will be
entitled to compensation. But so long as the land
remained as lung space/green area, there is no question
of any payment to the owner, as compensation or
otherwise. [Para 13] [832-G-H; 833-A]
H
SIEL FOODS & FERTILIZERS INDUSTRIES v. UNION 813
OF INDIA & ORS.
5. It is clarified that wherever such open lung space A
is created in the land surrendered, it shall be shown in
the Municipal/DOA records as 'ODA land - dedicated by
xxxxxxxx'. The ODA shall maintain a Trust Account of
such surrendered lands. This would mean that the DOA
which holds the surrendered and dedicated land in Trust B
cannot use it for any purpose other than as green belt
or other spaces for the benefit of the community. This will
be necessary to identify, if the land held by DOA in trust
for the community is not lost and is not treated as ODA
owned lands which can be dealt with by DOA as absolute c
owner. In the event of any acquisition or development of
such surrendered land, the owner-dedicator will have the
benefit of compensation on account of land ceasing to
be 'land dedicated to the community purpose of lung/
open space'. As the owner has already received some D
consideration in the form of 50% additional FAR, when
such acquisition/alienation takes place, ODA and the land
owner will be entitled to share the compensation at 50%
each. Where the land surrendered is very small or being
of an irregular shape, and DOA finds that it is not feasible E
or practical to maintain any small areas as independent
green belt or park or playground or lung space or to
safeguard any such area from encroachers, ODA can take
steps to consolidate several smaller areas into larger
blocks in the same locality so that they can be used
effectively. For that purpose, ODA may also enter into F
suitable arrangements by way of exchange or otherwise.
But any such consolidation or exchange shall be only
with the sanction of the District Court, Delhi, after notice
to the landowners-dedicators. Any change in use of such
surrendered land held iR Trust by DOA or any transfer by G
ODA shall be only after securing prior permission from
the High Court of Delhi. [Para 16) [833-H; 834-A-H]
6. The land surrendered by the applicant in IA No.
H
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.
A 1914 of 2006 and IA No. 2208 of 2007, which was
transferred by DOA to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation on
payment of a premium and other amounts, was .not
permissible. The land surrendered to ODA could be used
only for community purposes and cannot be used for any
B private purpose. In circumstances where the .land is
acquired or used (other than as green belt and open lung
space) for any other purpose under extreme necessity
the land owner would be entitled to get 50% of the
compensation or consideration for the use of such land.
c It is clarified that the owner of such land would be entitled
to get 50% of the amount received by ODA as
consideration/compensation. If ODA fails to pay the
same, such persons would be entitled to take appropriate
legal action. Any such diversion of use by DOA shall
henceforth be only with the permission of the District
0
Court, Delhi, after notice to the landowners concerned.
[Para 18) [835-C-E]
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
E Review Petition (C) Nos. 1200 of 2002
IN
IA NO. 36
F IN
I.A No. 129
IN
G W. P. (C) No. 4677 of 1985
Wllri
R.P. (C) No. 1256/2003 in I.A. No. 22 in I.A. No. 129 in W.P.
(C) No. 4677/1995;
H
SIEL FOODS & FERTILIZERS INDUSTRIES v. UNION 815
OF INDIA & ORS.
R.P. (C) No. 1295 of 2003 in I.A. No. 22 in W.P. (C) No. 4677/ A
1985; R.P. (C ) No. 1296 of 2003 in I.A. No. 22 in W.P. (C )
No. 4677/1985;
I.A. No. 1328 in W.P. (C) No. 4677/1985;
I.A. No. 1329 in W.P. ( C ) No. 4677/1985; B
I.A. No. 1782 in W.P. (C) No. 4677/1985;
I.A. No. 1805 in W.P. (C) No. 4677/1985;
I.A. No. 1850 in W.P. (C) No. 4677/1985; c
I.A. No. 1 in I.A. No ..... IN W.P. (C) No. 4677/1985;
Contempt Petition (C ) No. 22 of 2005 in I.A. No. 22 in W.P.
(C ) No. 4677/1985;
D
I.A. No. 1876 in CONMT. Petition (C) No. 22 of 2005 in W.P.
(C ) No. 4677/1985;
I.A. No. 1877 in CONMT. PET. ( C ) No. 22 of 2005 in W.P.
(C) No. 4677/1985; E
I.A. No. 1883 in R.P. (C) No. 1296/2003 in R.P. (C) No. 1200/
2002 in R.P. (C) No. 1256/2002 in W.P. (C) No. 4677/1985;
I.A. No. 1913-1914 in W.P. (C) No. 4677/1985;
F
I.A. No. 2205 in I.A. 1914/06 in W.P. (C) No. 4677/1985;
I.A. 2222 in I.A. 1172 in W.P. ( C) No. 4677/1985;
I.A. No. 2238 in I.A. 1914/06 in W.P. (C) No. 4677/1985;
G
I.A. No. 2266 in W.P. (C) No. 4677/1985
R. Mohan, ASG, Ranjit Kumar, (A.C.), Dr. A.M. Singhvi,
Jaideep Gupta, Kamal Gupta (A.C.) M.C. Mehta (petitioner-in-
person), O.P. Khaitan, Ankur Chawla, Jayant Mohan, Rahul H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.
A Pratap (for O.P. Khaitan & Co.), Vijayalakshmi Menon, Shruti
Verma, Bimal Roy Jad, Sunita Pandit, Bharti, Dinesh Kumar
-~arg, K.L. Mehta & Co., M.L. Lahoty, Paban K. Sharma,
Himanshu Shekhar, K. Rajeev, Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Ritu Menon,
Anupam Lal Das, Dheeraj Garg, Sukumaran, Meera Mathur,
B Ashok Bhan, Kiran Bhardwaj, M.P.S. Tomar, S.W.A. Qadri,
D.S. Mahra (for Anil Katiyar), Sandhya Goswami (for B.K.
Prasad), V.B. Saharya (for Saharya & Co.), P. Parmeshwaran,
D.N. Goburdhan, Geeta Luthra, Sheil Sethi, Avijit Bhattacharjee,
Praveen Swarup (NP), LP. Mangla (applicant-in-person) for the
c appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI: 1. In the city of Delhi, there
were several hazardous and noxious industries, as also several
D large and heavy industries, causmg· extensive pollution. The
Master Plan forDelhi - Perspective 2001, which was published
in the Gazette of India on 01.08.1990, did not permit any of
these industries to operate in Delhi. In a Public Interest
Litigation i.e. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Others, [IA No.22
E in W.P. (C) No. 4677/1985] the question of shifting these
polluting industries from Delhi and relocating them outside the
city of Delhi and other related issues were considered and a
series of orders were passed regarding shifting and relocating
the industries. The polluting industries were notified through
F individual notices, public notices in newspapers and electronic
media. This Court monitored the matter from January, 1995
and all stake holders, including Union of India, Delhi
Administration, Central Pollution Control Board, National Capital
Region Planning Board, Delhi Development Authority, and the
G polluting industries were heard/consulted during several
hearings. The Delhi Development Authority [for short "DOA"]
was also directed to frame suitable schemes regarding the
utilization of land which would become available after the
relocation of the hazardous/noxious/heavy/large industries from
Delhi. ODA constituted a Committee with Mr. K.J. Alphons,
H
SIEL FOODS & FERTILIZERS INDUSTRIES v. UNION 817
OF INDIA & ORS .. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
Commissioner, Land Management, DDA, as Chairman for this A
purpose. The said Committee examined the question
regarding the utilization of land made available as a result of
the re-location/ shifting of the industries and submitted detailed
proposals. Views of other experts were also considered.
B
2. After hearing the parties including fhe affected
industries, ultimately an order was passed on 10.05.1996
(reported in 1996 (4) sec351) relevant portions of which are
extracted below:
"6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the point C
at issue before us. We have had elaborate discussion with
the learned counsel representing various industries which
are to be relocated/shifted. The basic charter for the land
use in the city of Delhi is the Master Plan. The provisions
of the Master Plan are statutory and binding. The relevant D
provisions regarding hazardous/noxious/heavy/large
industries under the Master Plan are as un<;ier:
"HAZARDOUS AND NOXIOUS INDUSTRIES
Refer Annexure Ill H(a). E
(a) The hazardous and noxious industrial units are not
permitted in Delhi.
(b) The existing industrial units of this type shall be shifted
F
on priority within a maximum time-period of three years.
Project report to effectuate shifting shall be prepared by
the units concerned and submitted to the authority within
a maximum period of one year.
(c) The land which would become available on account of G
shifting as administered in (b) above, would be used for
making up the deficiency, as per the needs of the
community; based on norms given in Master Plan; if any
land or part of land, so vacated is not needed for the
deficiency of the community services, it will be used as per H
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 OJ 3 S.C.R.
A prescribed land use; however the land shall be used for
light and service industries, even if the land use according
to the Master Plan/Zonal Development Plan is extensive
industry.
(d) * * *
B
HEAVY AND LARGE INDUSTRIES
Refer Annexure Ill H(b)
(a) No new heavy and large industrial units shall be
c permitted in Delhi.
(b) The existing heavy and large-scale industrial units shall
shift to Delhi Metropolitan Area and the National Capital
region keeping in view the National Capital Region Plan
D and National Industrial Policy of the Government of India.
(c) The land which would become available on account of
shifting as administered in (b) above, would be used for
making up the deficiency, as per the needs of the
E community; based on norms given in the Master Plan; if
any land or part of land so vacated is not needed for the
deficiency of the community services, it will be used as per
prescribed land use; however the land shall be used for
light and service industries, even if the land use according
to the Master Plan/Zonal Development Plan is extensive
F
industry.
(d) * * *
It is thus obvious that the land which would become
G available on account of shifting/relocation of the industries
can only be used for making up the deficiency, as per the
needs of the community, based on the norms given in the
Master Plan. If any land or part of the land, so vacated is
not needed for community services it can be used as per
H the prescribed land use. To appreciate the concept "need
SIEL FOODS & FERTILIZERS INDUSTRIES v. UNION 819
OF INDIA & ORS. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
of the community" under the Master Plan, it would be useful A
to have a look at the following provisions of the Master
Plan:-
"In general it would be desirable to take up all the existing
developed residential areas one by one for environmental
8
improvements through (i) plantation and landscaping (ii)
provision of infrastructure - physical and social and proper
access where lacking (iii) possibility of infrastructure
management of the last tier through the local residents.
Conservation and revitalization is required in case of C
traditional areas and environmental upgradation and
improvement is needed in other old built-up areas.
LUNG SPACES
xx xx xxxx D
xxxx
Further conversion of recreational areas to other uses
should be permitted only under extraordinary
circumstances. Areas in lieu of such conversion may be
p~ovided elsewhere in order to maintain the overall E
average far1the city. xxxx
xxxx" "
7. Delhi is one of the most polluted cities in the world\ The
quality of ambient air is so hazardous that lung and
F
respiratory diseases are on the increase. The city has
become a vast and unmanageable conglomeration of
commercial, industrial, unauthorized colonies, resettlement
colonies and unplanned housing. There is total lack of
open spaces and green areas. Once a beautiful city Delhi
now presents a chaotic picture. The most vital "community G
need" as at present is the conservation of the environment
and reversal of the environmental degradation. There are
virtually no "lung spaces" in the city. The Master Plan
indicates the "approximately 34 per cent of recreational
areas have been lost to other uses". We are aware that H
820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.
A the housing, the sports activity and the recreational areas
are also part of the "community need" but the most
important community need which is wholly deficient and
needed urgently is to provide for the "lung spaces" in the
city of Delhi in the shape of green belts and open spaces.
B We are, therefore, of the view that totality of the land which
is surrendered and dedicated to the community by the
owners/occupiers of the relocated/shifted industries
should be used for the development of green belts and
open spaces.
c 8. The core question for consideration, however, is how
much of the total land which would become available
from each of the industrialists is to be taken away by the
' I
community for its use and how much is to be left in the
~ards of.the industrialists for the community use. The
D suggestions given by Alphons Committee in this respect
have been noted by· us in the earlier part of th~ order. Mr.
Omesh Sehgal, Mr. P.C. Jairl and Justice Khanna by and
large agree with the suggestions of.th~ Alphons
Committee. We are of the view that no useful purpose
E would be served by maintaining two categories as
suggested by Alphons Committee in columns 3 and 4.
After leaving a part of the land with the owner for
developing the same in accordance with the surrender to
the Delhi Development Authority [DOA] for developing the
F same to meet the community needs, it obviously means
that the land has to be surrendered and dedicated to the
community. While meeting the community needs it is
necessary to make a suitable provision for the owner to
enable him to meet the· expenses of relocating/shifting the
G industry. It would, therefore, be in conformity with the
broader concept of "community need" under the Master
Plan, to permit the owner to develop part of the land for
his own benefit and suffender the remaining land for the
use of the community at large.
H
SIEL FOODS & FERTILIZERS INDUSTRIES v. UNION 821
OF INDIA & ORS. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
9. We, therefore, order and direct that the land which A
would become available on account of shifting/relocation
of hazardous/noxious/heavy and large industries from
the city of Delhi shall be used in the following manner:
:>.No. Extent Percentage to be Percentage to be B
surrendered and development by the
dedicated to the owner for his own
ODA for benefit in
development of accordance with the
green belts and user permitted c
other spaces under the Master Plan
(1) (2) (3) (4)
1 Up to 2000 - 100% to be developed
sq. mts. by the owner in D
(including the accordance with the
first 2000 sq. zoning regulation of
the Master mts. of the
Plan larger '
plot)
E
2 0.2 ha to 5 ha 57 43
3 5 h to 10 ha 65 35
4 Over 10 ha 68 32 F
10. We do not agree with the learned counsel for the
industrialists that Floor Area Ratio [FAR] be
permitted to them on the total area of the plot. We,
however, direct that on the percentage of land as G
shown in column 4 the owners at Serial Nos. 2, 3
and 4 shall be entitled to one and a half times of
the permissible FAR under the Master Plan
11 . The DOA has suggested that it may be necessary H
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 3 S.C.R.
A to amend the Master Plan for regularizing the land
use as directed by us. The totality of the land
made available as a result of the relocating!
· shifting of the industries is to be used for the
community needs. The land surrendered by the
B owner has to be used for the development of green
belt and open spaces. The land left with the owner
is to be developed in accordance with the user
permitted under the Master Plan. In either way the
development is to meet the community needs
c which is in conformity with the provisions of the
Master Plan."
(emphasis supplied)
3. This was followed by another order dated 8.7.1996
D (reported in 1996 (4) SCC 750) wherein this Court observed :
" .... The allotment of the plots shall be made on priority
basis. We have no doubt that reasonable incentives, which
are normally provided to new industries in new industrial
estates, shall be extended to the shifting industries. This
E
Court by the order dated 10.5.1996 in M. C. Mehta v.
Union of India (1996 (4) SCC 351] has already directed
and laid down the manner in which the land which would
become available on account of shifting of H(a) and H(b)
industries is to be used. In view of the huge increase of
F prices of land in Delhi, the reuse of the vacant land is
bound to bring lots of money which can meet the cost of
relocation."
"The use of the land which would become available on
G account of shifting/relocation of the industries shall be
permitted in terms of the orders of this Court dated
10.5.1996 in M.C. Mehta."
(emphasis supplied)
H 4. By order dated 4.12.1996 (reported in 1997 (11) SCC
SIEL FOODS & FERTILIZERS INDUSTRIES v. UNION 823
OF INDIA & ORS. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
237) several clarifications were issued. One of the clarifications A
was that the order dated 10.5.1996 regarding land use - that
is utilization of land available as a result of shifting/relocation/
closure of hazardous/noxious/heavy/large industries from Delhi
- are applicable both for relocating industries as well as those
which decide to close down and not to relocate. B
5. While most of the industries, shifted or relocated, there
were delay and obstacles in surrendering the land for
community purposes as per the order dated 10.5.1996. The
District court, Delhi was authorized to implement the directions C
issued by this Court. The High Court has been monitoring the
progress of the surrender of the lands as a consequence of such
re-locations.
6. Some of the industries including Swatantra Bharat Mills
and DCM Silk Mills filed interlocutory applications praying for D
a direction to DOA to acquire the land required to be
surrendered under the DOA Act or Land Acquisition Act and
to restrain DOA from trying to expropriate their lands. The
request was turned down and IAs were dismissed as
withdrawn. E
7. Thereafter, M.C. Mehta, the petitioner in the public
interest litigation moved an application (IA No.129 in IA No.22)
making a grievance that though the industries were closed, they
had not surrendered the excess land to DOA, in pursuance of
the orders dated 10.5.1996 and 8.7.1996. Notices were issued F
to the defaulting industries. A large number of industries
appeared through counsel and the matter was heard at length.
Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of a group of industries contended that this Court had
never contemplated that the land should be surrendered free G
of cost. He further contended that when this Court directed that
their land should be surrendered, it was clearly implied that the
ODA would have to acquire the land under Section 15 of the
Delhi Development Act, 1957 and pay compensation for the
land. After considering the contentions, this Court by order H
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R .
. A dated 28.4.2000 (reported in 2000 (5) SCC 525), categorically
rejected the said contention by holding as follows:
"When this Court first passed the order on 10.05.1996, it
had before it the report of Mr. Justice D.R. Khanna and
had the advantage of hearing several counsels over a
B
period of six months as is evident from the order itself. It
will be difficult to believe or accept that the Court was not
aware of the provisions of the Delhi Development Authority
Act which, inter alia, provides in Section 15 that the
Authority could acquire the land for the purposes of the Act.
c The Court nevertheless directed the surplus land not to be
acquired by ODA but to be surrendered by the owners.
With regard to the balance of land, it was to be retained
by the owner. The Court directed that FAR would stand
increased to "one-and-a-half times of the permissible
D FAR under the Master Plan". It is true that the Court did
not direct any compensation, but this element of
compensation was clearly present in the mind of the
Court when it increased FAR and permitted the owner to
build more than what was permissible under the Master
E Plan. It is not possible, therefore, to accept the contention
that DOA is bound to acquire the land under Section 15
after paying compensation.
Be that as it may, there is nothing to indicate in the order
F nor has our attention been drawn to any affidavit that there
was, at any point of time, a contention raised or a demand
made that cash payment should be made for the land
required to be surrendered or that ODA should be asked
to acquire the land under Section 15. Mr. G.L. Sanghi,
learned Senior Counsel submits that in a matter like this
G
where a public interest litigation is filed, the principle of res
judicata does not strictly apply. Even if this be so, we would
have expected the owners to have raised this contention
if they had genuinely felt that there was a need for
compensation to be awarded foi the land which was to be
H
SIEL FOODS & FERTILIZERS INDUSTRIES v. UNION 825
OF INDIA & ORS. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
surrendered. Perhaps they were happy to have an A
increased FAR which would have enabled them to
construct more and would have offset the loss of land
without payment of money. In fact, by the order dated
08.07.1996 reported as M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India
[see : 1996 (4) SCC 750 at page 762, para 15], it was B
observed as follows: .
'In view of the huge increase of prices of land in Delhi, the
reuse of the vacant land is bound to bring lots of money
which can meet the cost of relocation'
c
Be that as it may, we do not think that it is appropriate at
this juncture to permit the erstwhile owners of the land to
raise the contention that they should be paid
compensation.
D
It has to be borne in mind that the Master Plan of 1990
made it obligatory on the hazardous industries to shift
within three years. No time. limit was stipulated with regard
to the existing heavy and large industries, but the spirit
clearly was that they should shift within a reasonable period E
of time. If the industries continued to use the land in
violation of and Jn disreg;:ird of the Master Plan and then
have had to lose some parcels of land, they have to blame
themselves for it. It was contended before us by Mr. K.K.
Venugopal that if the industry had shut before 1996, it
F
would have been entitled to retain all the land, but because
the closure has been effected as a result of the order of
this Court, the owners have had to surrender part of the
land free of cost. This is undoubtedly, true but as we have
observed above if the owners had cared to obey the law
then, as is always the case, would have been more G
profitable."
(emphasis supplied)
8. Another attempt was made by a group of industries by H
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.
A raising this issue regarding compensation for land surrendered,
when DOA filed an interlocutory application for various
directions. The industries also filed several applications. All
those interlocutory applications came up before a three Judge
Bench of this Court and this Court disposed of the matter by
B judgment dated 01.03.2001 [reported in (2001) 4 SCC 577]. It
was contended by the industries that their industrial units which
had been ordered to re-locate were not bound to surrender their
freehold land free of cost and that the ODA had to acquire the
land under Section 15 of the Act. The matter was elaborately
c argued by eminent counsel and their arguments were
discussed in detail, and all their pleas were rejected. This Court
also noticed that the Master Plan came into existence in 1962
and that 'H' category industries ought to have shifted out of the
area in 1962 itself; that the subsequent Master Plan in 1990
directed shifting the industries within a specified period of within
0
three years; that there was an obligation on the 'H' category
industries to shift and relocate in terms of the Master Plan by
the year 1993; and that all possible opportunities were given
to the industries and upon assessment of the situation through
E the appointments of commissions and obtaining the consent
of various parties on these aspects, the Court passed the order
on 10.05.1996. This Court issued specific directions on several
issues raised by DOA. This Court directed that even industries
which closed prior to the order dated 10.5.1996 (whose names
appeared in the list of 'H' category industries to be closed) are
F liable to surrender land as per order dated 10.5.1996. The
relevant portions of the order are extracted below :-
"Be it noted that the learned Amicus Curiae with his usual
eloquence contended that review applications against the
G order passed on 10.5.1996 numbered 36 in the year
1966, 55 in the year 1997, 3 in the year 1999 and 2
petitions in the year 2000, as the records depict, were all
dismissed and in the wake of the same, Mr. Ranjit Kumar
addressed us in detail that the present petition said to be
H for clarification cannot but be attributed to be a further
SIEL FOODS & FERTILIZERS INDUSTRIES v. UNION 827
OF INDIA & ORS. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
attempt to review the order dated 10.5.1996 which, in fact, A
does not call for any review nor does it call for any further
order substituting the earlier order dated 10.5.1996.
Be it noted that the order dated 10.5.1996 specifically
directed that 'H' category industries are required to
8
surrender the land to ODA. We may note here that this order
of surrender was passed by reason of the fact that the
pollution level has reached its optimum in the city of Delhi
affecting the entire society - 'H' category industries were
directed to close and to surrender the land so as to make
available some green belt and open space popularly C
ascribed to be lung space for the city. Industries might
have closed in terms of the order of this Court and the
compliance with the order was to this limited extent only.
Structures are still lying there and no surrender has yet
taken place. The majesty of law demanded compliance D
in observance rather than in its breach - it is for the
society only that this Court thought it fit to pass order to
the extent as indicated above ..... .
... ... . We make it clear that the order dated 7.12.1999, in E
the case of vegetable oil was in the peculiar facts of that
case and is not of universal application, nor does it in any
way dilute the mandate of the order of this Court directing
surrender of entire land subject to the extent of availability
to the owner as per order dated 10.5.1996. F
. . . .. On the question as to the land to be surrendered
should be free from encumbrance, we are of the view, if
the land is already encumbered, then a direction to release
it from encumbrance and surrender will be a great burden.
At the same time, such land will be of no use to the society G
unless released from encumbrance. In the circumstances
we direct that the owner cannot utilize the land available
to him by virtue of order of this Court dated 10.5.1996, until
he releases the surrendered land from encumbrance.
Further, if it is not made free from encumbrance within five H
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.
A years, then he will not get the benefit of the order dated
10.5.19996 and after five years even the land which the
owner was otherwise entitled to retain would stand vested
with DDA for the use and the need of the society. "
9. The petitioners in these Review Petitions and
8
Interlocutory Applications seek a review of the orders dated
10.5.1996 8.7.1996, 4.12.1996 and 28.4.2000 passed by this
Court. We have heard Sri Harish Salve, Sri Mukul Rohatgi, Dr.
AM. Singhvi, Sri Dushyant Dave, Mr: Jaideep Gupta, Mr. M.L.
Lat:ioti, and others for the land-owners (erstwhile industries in
C Delhi) as also the learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf
of the Union Government, and Mr. D.N. Goburdhan, on behalf
of the Delhi Development Authority. Mr. Ranjit Kumar rendered
able assistance as amicus curiae.
D 10. The petitioners/ applicants contended that the findings
of this Court in the earlier judgments and orders dated
10.5.1996, 8.7.1996 and 28.4.2000 regarding the element of
compensation are ex facie incorrect and the judgment and
order dated 10.05.1996 is liable to be reviewed. It was urged
E that the increased FAR mentioned in the Order is illusory and
that there were restrictions on the permitted height of
construction and many of the owners of freehold land had not
been able to use the increased FAR. They contended that if
any land is required for the purpose of development or for any
F other purpose, DDA should resort to compulsory acquisition
under section 15 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957. It was
contended that no land can be taken over or required to be
surrendered without compulsory acquisition under Section 15
of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and payment of market
value as compensation. It was contended that transfer of
G ownership of freehold land otherwise than by acquisition or by
conveyance or by inheritance was not known to law; and Article
300A of the Constitution barred any person being deprived of
his property save by authority of law. It was further contended
that the mere fact that this court did not want the Government
H
SIEL FOODS & FERTILIZERS INDUSTRIES v. UNION 829
OF INDIA & ORS. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
to undertake the time consuming process of acquisition under A
Section 15 of the Delhi Development Act would not in any way
detract from the rule of law which requires the land owners of
Delhi Industries to be treated on par with owners of land in
other parts of the country which are acquired for the purposes
of urban development. It was submitted while Section 15 deals B
with compulsory acquisition of land where the land is required
for the purpose of development or any other purpose under the
DD Act, Section 55 of the said Act dealt with modification of
the Master Plan or zonal development plan in certain cases.
The said section provided that where any land is required by c
the Master Plan or a zonal Development Plan to be kept as an
open space or un-built upon or is designated in any such plan
as subject to compulsory acquisition, then if at the expiration
of 10 years from the date of operation of the plan under section
11 or where such land has been so required or designated by 0
any amendment of such plan, from the date of operation of such
amendment, the land is not compulsorily acquired, the owner
of the land may serve notice on the Government requiring his
interest in the land to be so acquired; an_d if the Government
fails to acquire the land within a period of six months from the E
date of the said notice, the Master Plan or the Zonal
Development Plan, shall have effect, as if the land were not
required to be kept as an open space or un-built upon or were
not designated as subject to compulsory acquisition. It is
submitted this provision was completely ignored by this Court,
while passing the order dated 10.5.1996. It was argued that as F
relevant constitutional and statutory provisions had not been
taken note of by this Court, and as there is an apparent error
on the face of the record, the impugned order dated 10.05.1996
should be reviewed. Another argument put forth by some of the
owners is the word 'surrender' used in the order dated G
10.5.1996 would apply only to leasehold land and not to
freehold land.
It was further submitted that physical surrender of land to
DOA in pursuance of the order dated 10.5.1996 being for the H
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20fOJ3 -S.CR.
A limited purpose of maintaining green belt and lung spaces,
DOA cannot claim any ownership right nor commercially exploit
the same. It was lastly contended that the rule of 'res judicata'
would not apply in this case to prevent the Court from
entertaining the grievance and giving appropriate directions.
8
11. The learned Amicus Curiae pointed out that despite
the fact that the Master Plan for Delhi was published as early
as in 1990, these hazardous, noxious, large and heavy
industries did not take steps to shift their premises out of Delhi
C and these industries had been causing severe pollution for a
long period thereby violating the Master Plan as well as
damaging the environment and it was at this juncture that this
Court had passed the order and directed all these industries
to be re-located outside Delhi and issued categorical directions
rE;lgarding surrender of portions of the land cleared by shifting
D of industries for community use; and that the landowners were
not entitled to any compensation in regard to such surrender
except the additional FAR granted under the decision. The
learned Additional Solicitor General and the learned counsel
for DOA also took the same stand. They further pointed out that
E all the above-mentioned pleas had been raised before this
Court and had been considered in detail on more than one
occasion and that they had been rejected and many of these
petitioners have repeatedly filed review petitions, curative
petitions and writ petitions and some of these petitions have
F been filed much after the original order that was passed on
10.05.1996. Therefore,· it was urged that there is no merit in
the contentions advanced by the petitioners.
12. There is no question of acquisition and/or
G compensation in regard to the lands to be surrendered, is also
evident from the categorical directions given in the order dated
10.5.1996. The surrender of lands by the industries was under
a broad scheme framed by the court after assessment and
consideration of the then existing situation, the reports of
various committees, the grievances and contentions of various
H
SIEL FOODS & FERTILIZERS INDUSTRIES v. UNION 831
OF INDIA & ORS. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
industries and the consensus arrived at on certain issues, and A
the findings on several other issues. This Court categorically
stated :
"After leaving a part of the land with the owner for
developing the same in accordance with the permissible
8
land use under the Master Plan, the remaining land
should be surrendered to Delhi Development Authority
for developing the same to meet the community needs."
In para 10 of the order dated 10.5.1996, this Court held that in
respect' of the land which was to be retained by the owner for C
its own benefit and to be developed in accordance with the
permitted use, the owner will be entitled to one and half times
the permissible FAR under the Master Plan. The scheme
contemplated not merely surrender of a part of the land but
"dedication" of such surrendered land to the DOA for D
development of green belts and open spaces. The land that
was to be surrendered had to be retained as green belt and
open spaces and not to be sold, constructed or developed by
DOA.
E
13. We have carefully considered the various review
petitions and other applications filed in this regard. We have
extracted the relevant portions of the orders dated 10.5.1996,
8. 7 .1996, 4.12.1996 and 28.4.2000 which cl~arly demonstrate
that the owners of land/industries were given a fair hearing
before passing the order on 10.5.1996. The petitioners had now F
raised these very contentions that their lands will have to be
acquired and that they are entitled to get reasonable
compensation when their land was taken over. All these pleas
had been repeatedly rejected by this Court. The Scheme
evolved by this Court in its order dated 10.5.1996 is clear : G
(i) The land which becomes available on account of an
industry being shifted out of Delhi would be divided
equitably into two portions. The one portion to be retained
by the land owner for development for his own benefit and H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.
A the other portion to be surrendered to ODA for community
use for development of green belts, open/lung spaces. The
land to be surrendered and dedieated for community use
was 57% (where the size of the plot was 0.2H to 5H), 65%
(where the size of the plot was 5H to 1OH) and 68%
B (where the plot was over 1OH). The balance was to be
retained by the landowner. The percentage was to be
calculated after deducting first 2000 sq.m. for development
by the owner.
(ii) In consideration of the land owners surrendering and
c dedicating a part of the land for com~uni~ use, they (land
owners) will be entitled, to an additional 50% FAR in
1
regard to the land permitted to be retained by them for their
benefit. That is, the FAR would stand increased to one and
a half times of the admissible FAR under th~ Master Plan.
D The landowners will not be entitled to any other
cdnsideration/compensation for the land surrendered and
dedicated to the community.
(iii) The portions of land surrendered to ODA and
E dedicated for community purposes, that is only for being
used as green belt or open 'lung spaces' for the city. Such
dedicated land will be used only for such dedicated
purpose and not any other purpose.
(iv) The land will be at the disposal of the community at
F large and the ODA shall not exploit it for either commercial
use or co'nstruction of residential flats. As ODA is not going
to derive any benefit by exploitation thereof, and was to
only hold it in trust for and on behalf of the community, there
was no question of DOA paying any compensation
G therefore to the land owners.
It therefore, follows that such land dedicated by private owners
to the community, is acquired for any other purpose, or is
diverted to any other use by DOA (as for example for putting
H up constructions or for sale or lease for development or
SIEL FOODS & FERTILIZERS INDUSTRIES v. UNION 833
OF INDIA & ORS. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
construction), the land owner will be entitled to compensation. A
But so long as the land remained as lung space/green area,
there is no question of any payment to the owner, as
compensation or otherwise.
14. The order dated 10.5.1996 was passed to give effect B
to the Master Plan, to save the city and in public interest.
Therefore by surrendering a part of the land, the owners were
not only benefiting the community but themselves. The records
clearly show that before the order dated 10.5.1996 was
passed, the question what should be the compensation for the C
surrendered lands was specifically raised and considered. It
was made clear that additional FAR will be in lieu of any
monetary compensation for the land to be surrendered and
dedicated to DOA for community use, for development green
belts and lung spaces. Therefore, it is evident that the order
dated 10.5.1996 clearly intended that the land to be D
\ surrendered would vest in trust in DOA for the benefit of the
community and the additional FAR was the only compensation
for such surrender land for community benefit and there would
be no further compensation. Contentions similar to the
contentions now raised were rejected by this Court by order E
dated 28.4.2000. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to
again review all these orders or take a different view.
Therefore, all these review petitions, applications for directions
and clarifications are without any merit.
F
15. We may note that some of these review petitions have
been filed after dismissal or withdrawal of the earlier petition
by the very same petitioners seeking almost the very same
reliefs. Therefore, such petitions are prima facie not
mj:lintainable and the pleas raised by these petitioners to G
review the earlier order passed by this Court cannot be
considered. Be that as it may. As the contentions raised by
others have been considered, this issue loses relevance.
16. One aspect requires clarification, particularly in view
of some of the surrendered land being acquired or taken H
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.
A perpetual lease by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation from ODA.
The landowners surrendered and dedicated portions of the land
as shown in Column Ill of the Table contained in Para 9 of the
Order dated 10.5.1996 exclusively for the purpose of
development of green belt and open spaces. Therefore
B wherever such open lung space is created, it shall be shown
in the Municipal/DOA records as 'DOA land - dedicated by
xxxxxxxx'. The DOA shall maintain a Trust Account of such
surrendered lands. This would mean that the ODA which holds
the surrendered and dedicated land in Trust cannot use it for
c any purpose other than as green belt or other spaces for the
benefit of the community. This will be necessary to identify if
the land held by DOA in trust for the community i~ ri<;>t lost and
is not treated as DOA owned lands which can be dea~t with by
DOA as absolute owner. In the event of any acquiSi*i. n or
development of such surrendered land, the owner- de · tor
0
will have the benefit of compensation on account of I pd
ceasing to be 'land dedicated to the community purpose qt.
lung/open space". As the owner has already received som~
consideration in the form of 50% additional FAR, we are of the
E view that when such acquisition/alienation takes place, ODA
and the land owner will be entitled to share the compensation
at 50% each. The second aspect is where the land surrendered
is very small (say on account of 57% of 0.2 Hectare that is 1140
sqm being surrendered) or being of an irregular shape, and
DOA finds that it is not feasible or practical to maintain any
F small areas as independent green belt or park or playground
or lung space or to safeguard any such area from encroachers,
ODA can take steps to consolidate several smaller areas into
larger blocks in the same locality so that they can be used
effectively. For that purpose, ODA may also enter into suitable
G arrangements by way of exchange or otherwise. But any such
consolidation or exchange shall be only with the sanction of the
District Court, Delhi, after notice to the Landowners -
Dedicators. Any change in use of such surrendered land held
in trust by DOA or any transfer by DOA shall be only after
H securing prior permission from the High Court of Delhi.
SIEL FOODS & FERTILIZERS INDUSTRIES v. UNION 835
OF INDIA & ORS. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
17. M/s SIEL Ltd., the applicant in IA No. 1914/2006 and A
IA No. 2205/2007 (SIEL Ltd.) submitted that DOA, out of 18.854
Hee. surrendered by it though it did not have either ownership
or right of commercial exploitation had transferred 7.5 Hee. plus
1.21 Hee. to DMRC on payment of a premium of 1,55,33,213/
- plus others amounts. It is contended that such transfer was B
impermissible and the monetary gain should be paid over to
the owner of the land. It is also contended that the land should
be used only in accordance with the order dated 10.5.1996.
18. The land surrendered by SIEL Ltd. as per the order C
dated 10.5.1996 to DOA could be used only for community
purposes and cannot be used for any private purpose. In
circumstances where the land is acquired or used (other than
as green belt and open lung space) for any other purpose under
extreme necessity the land owner would be entitled to get 50%
of the compensation or consideration for the use of such land. D
We make it clear that the owner of such land would be entitled
to get 50% of the amount received by DOA as consideration/
compensation. If DOA fails to pay the same, such persons
would be entitled to take appropriate legal action. We again
reiterate that any such diversion of use by DOA shall henceforth E
be only with the permission of the District Court, Delhi, after
notice to the landowners concerned. I.A. 1850/2003 and IA
1914/2006 with IA No.2205/2007 are disposed of accordingly.
19. All review petitions, interlocutory applications and other F
petitions are dismissed, subject to the clarification contained
in paras 13, 16, 17 and 18 above.
K.K.T. Petitions and lnterlocutry Applications dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Delhi Development Authority"Sign in to search