Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6169-6171 OF 2013
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. … APPELLANTS
VERSUS
M/S. JASWANT SUGAR MILLS LTD. & ORS.ETC. … RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.6172-6174 OF 2013,
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7122 OF 2003
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.7123-7124 OF 2003
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7125 OF 2003
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.7126-7129 OF 2003
J U D G M E N T
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.
In these appeals the dispute relates to payment of
compensation pursuant to acquisition of land of respondent-M/s.
Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the
JUDGMENT
“Company”) and auction of part of the land of the Company. There
being cross-claims, all of these appeals were heard together for
determination by a common judgment.
2. The Company preferred two writ petitions challenging the
orders passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Meerut and
th rd
Board of Revenue dated 18 December, 1995 and 3 August, 1996
respectively. The aforesaid orders were also challenged by the
State Government. The writ petitions were disposed of by the
learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court by a common judgment
1
Page 1
st
dated 1 March, 2011. By the said judgment, the High Court
directed the State Government to pay the Company the compensation
on the basis of the compromise reached between the State
Government and the tenure holder Company for acquisition of their
land by Meerut Development Authority. It is also directed that out
of compensation paid by the Meerut Development Authority (about
Rs.4.33 crores) an amount of Rs.1.62 crores shall be deducted and
the remaining amount shall be paid to the Company. The State has
been given liberty to realize the said amount from those
authorities to whom it was wrongly paid by the previous Collector,
th
Tulsi Gaur, under his order dated 20 February, 1992. The impugned
st
judgment dated 1 March, 2011 has been challenged by the State of
U.P. in C.A. Nos.6169-6171 of 2013 (State of U.P. & ors. Vs. M/s.
Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. & Ors.etc.), as also by M/s. Jaswant
Sugar Mills Ltd. in C.A. Nos. 6172-6174 of 2013 & Ors. (M/s.
Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. vs The Colletor/District Magistrate &
Ors.).
3. A piece of land of the Company was put to auction for recovery
JUDGMENT
of dues of the Company. It was challenged by the Company by filing
th
a writ petition. The High Court by impugned judgment dated 27
April, 2001 cancelled the auction sale and allowed the writ
petition. In a review application preferred by auction purchaser,
rd
the High Court by order dated 3 September, 2001 directed the
respondents to refund the amount to the auction purchasers. The
aforesaid judgment and orders are under challenge in C.A. Nos.7122
of 2003, 7123-7124 of 2003, 7125 of 2003 and 7126-7129 of 2003.
2
Page 2
C.A.Nos.6169-6171 of 2013 and C.A.Nos.6172-6174 of 2013.
4. For determination of the issue involved in C.A. Nos.6169-
6171 of 2013 and C.A. Nos. 6172-6174 of 2013, it is desirable to
refer the relevant factual matrix of the case which is as follows:
The proprietors of respondent Company, namely M/s. Jaswant
Sugar Mills Ltd. had six business units as under:
(i) M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mills.
(ii) Meerut Straw Board Mills.
(iii) Pootha Farm.
(iv) Northern India Paper Mills.
(v) Bindal Vanaspati Ghee Mills.
(vi) Meduwala Open Pan Sugar, Bijnor.
rd
The Company was in heavy arrears as on 3 January, 1977 to
the extent of Rs.1.14 crores. Accordingly, the District Collector,
Meerut appointed a Receiver under Section 286-A of U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act,(hereinafter referred to as the
“Zamindari Abolition Act”).
th
5. Subsequently, the Company was acquired by the State on 28
JUDGMENT
October, 1984 as per provisions of the U.P. State Sugar
Undertakings Acquisition Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the
“Acquisition Act, 1971”), as amended in the year 1984, free from
all encumbrances and the said Unit was vested with the U.P. State
Sugar Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”).
6. Since, the Company was in arrears to the extent of Rs.1.29
th
crores, the District Collector, Meerut by order dated 28
November, 1984, attached all the remaining five constituent units
3
Page 3
except the Sugar Mill. The General Manger of the aforesaid Sugar
unit was appointed as a Receiver with reference to all the
aforesaid remaining five units. In between 1977 to 1984, for
smooth functioning of the Sugar Mill, payment of dues to sugarcane
grower, repairing of machinery etc., on the request of the
Receiver, the State Government granted loan of Rs.6.13 crores to
the Company, and was to be recovered as the arrears of Land
Revenue along with interest.
7. The District Collector, Meerut taking into consideration the
th
dues to the extent of Rs.1.62 crores as on 24 October, 1990 were
to be paid by the Company, extended the tenure of the Receiver
till further orders. The order of the extension of tenure of the
Receiver was challenged by the ex-proprietors of the Company in a
Writ Petition No.18496/1991. Subsequently, the Receiver was
th
withdrawn on 18 December, 1995, therefore, the writ petition was
also withdrawn.
8. Pursuant to “Uttar Pradesh imposition of Ceiling of Land
Holdings Act” (hereinafter referred to as the “Ceiling Act”), land
JUDGMENT
admeasuring 723.3 bigha belonging to the Company was declared
surplus. Against the same a Writ Petition No.3905/1987 was
preferred by the Company.
9 . During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition the State
th
Government issued a Notification dated 14 August, 1987 under
Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 for the Meerut Development Authority. It was followed by a
th
Notification dated 4 September, 1987 issued u/s 6 of the
4
Page 4
Acquisition Act. The said Notification included the land of M/s
Pootha Farm, a constituent unit of the Company. In the said case
compensation amount of Rs.4.33 crores was awarded by Special Land
nd
Acquisition Officer vide award dated 22 February, 1990.
10. The District Collector, Meerut, pursuant to a report of the
Tehsildar, ordered to pay the compensation amount after adjustment
of different dues payable by the Company.
11. Pursuant to a Court’s order, the District Collector, Meerut
th
passed a speaking order dated 20 February, 1992 showing the
details of adjustments to be made out of compensation amount of
Rs.4.34 crores payable by the Company, as detailed below:
1.Labour Dues and others Rs.1,39,72,300.83
2.Sales Tax Rs. 40,18,401.00
3.Payments towards Loan Rs.2,54,04,080.57
-----------------
Total Rs.4,33,94,783.40
=================
th
The District Collector in the said order dated 20 February,
1992 concluded that after such adjustment the following dues were
JUDGMENT
still to be paid by the Company.
1. Payments towards loan Rs.3,59,83,381.43
2. Income Tax Rs. 79,14,781.00
3. Levy Price(Central Govt) Rs. 38,64,000.00
4. House Tax Rs. 6,23,605.49
5. Railway Dues Rs. 2,54,570.40
6. Cane Commissioner Rs. 45,11,400.00
7. Provident Fund Rs. 55,25,769.59
8. Labour Dues Rs. 44,856.60
9. E.S.I. Rs. 72,624.00
5
Page 5
10.Labour Dues(other units) Rs. 20,73,704.78
11.Purchase Tax Rs. 1,05,518.69
-----------------
Total Rs. 6,09,74,211.98
=================”
12. The State Government filed the deduction statement for
recovery of the dues before the prescribed authority constituted
under U.P. Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act, 1971. However, the
aforesaid claim was rejected by the prescribed authority by order
th
dated 4 October, 1994 in Claim No.13 of 1999.
th
13. Against the said order dated 4 October, 1994 passed by the
prescribed authority, the appellant filed Appeal No.1/95 before
th
the Appellate Tribunal. By order dated 12 October, 1995, the
Appellate Tribunal directed the appellant to file a fresh
deduction claim before the prescribed authority.
14. The Company moved an application before the District
Collector, Meerut stating therein that as on date there are no
arrears/liability payable by the Company, therefore, requested to
remove the Receiver.
JUDGMENT
th
15. The District Collector, Meerut by order dated 18 December,
1995, allowed the case No.30/1995 with observation that as on the
date no recovery certificate was pending against the Company.
Hence, the appointment of Receiver was terminated with immediate
effect. It was further ordered that a detailed list of the assets
be prepared and signed by both the parties and the assets be
transferred to the Company. An order was passed to appoint a
Chartered Accountant to complete the audit of the accounts.
6
Page 6
th
16. As the order dated 18 December, 1995, passed by the District
Collector, Meerut is silent about the amount payable to the
Company, the Ex-Proprietor of the Company moved an application
before the Chairman Board of Revenue and requested to refund the
compensation amount to the Company.
17. The Company filed a Writ Petition No.10220/1996 before High
Court for modification of the order of the District Collector,
th
Meerut dated 18 December, 1995.
18. During the pendency of the said case, the Chairman, Board of
rd
Revenue, by order dated 3 August, 1996 directed that out of the
total amount of Rs.4.33 crores received as compensation from
Meerut Development Authority, after deduction of a sum of Rs.1.62
crores along with interest and collection charges the balance
amount shall be refunded to the Company.
rd
19. Against the aforesaid order dated 3 August, 1996 passed by
the Chairman, Board of Revenue, the Company filed Writ Petition
No.31378/1996 on the ground that there is no dues payable by the
Company. In the said case the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd.
JUDGMENT
filed a counter affidavit refuting such stand taken by the
Company.
20. A separate counter affidavit was filed by the Deputy
Secretary, Sugar and Cane Development, Lucknow, giving details of
dues payable by the Company as detailed by the District Collector,
th
Meerut by his order dated 18 December, 1995.
th
21. The High Court initially passed an interim order on 17 July,
1997 as under:
7
Page 7
“ Considering the facts and the circumstances of the
case, the respondents are directed to pay to M/s
Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerut the amount of
compensation money amounting to Rs.4,33,94,783.40 after
deducting a sum of Rs.1,62,02,402.20 + interest and
collection charges within a period of two months from
today. Payments so made shall be subject to final
decision of the Writ Petition.”
22. Against the interim order, the appellant-State filed the
Special Appeals.
th
23. By judgment and order dated 7 July, 2010 passed in Special
Appeal Nos.5179-80/2010, the High Court quashed the interim order
th
dated 17 July, 1997 passed by the learned Single Judge. It was
ordered to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously.
24. In the meantime, the District Collector by its notice dated
nd
22 August, 2005, directed the Company to refund certain amount.
The said notice was also challenged by the Company.
rd
25. The High Court by judgment and order dated 23 February, 2011
nd
quashed the notice dated 22 August, 2005 with direction to the
appellant to pay the compensation amount to the Company. However,
it was clarified that if the land, which have been acquired
JUDGMENT
finally, does not fall within the ceiling limit of the Company,
then it will be open for the State to recover it after the
finalisation of the ceiling proceedings, as per law. Subsequently,
st
impugned common judgment and order dated 1 March, 2011 was passed
in Writ Petition No.31378/1996, etc., with observation and
directions as referred to above.
26. The grievance of the appellant-State is that the High Court
while passing the impugned order has not noticed the liability
8
Page 8
incurred by the undertaking and the loan paid to the Company.
According to the appellant, the aforesaid issue has not been
decided.
27. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents made
the following submissions:
(i) No amount, whatsoever, is due and payable by the
Company to the State. Till date, there has not been a
single determination/adjudication by any Court/Authority
of any dues against the Company nor is there any claim
pending before any Authority or before any Court, on
date. Furthermore, the State has not been able to produce
any recovery certificate of any department showing any
dues against the Company.
(ii) The Collector has no power to adjudicate the dues
under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Revenue Act
and is merely a recovery agent to recover sums payable as
arrears of land revenue, upon receipt of a valid Recovery
Certificate.
JUDGMENT
28. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records.
29. It is not in dispute that the Company was under heavy arrears
rd
as on 3 January, 1977. Therefore, the District Collector, Meerut
appointed the Receiver. Subsequently, Sugar Mill of the Company
th
was acquired on 28 October, 1984 under Sugar Undertakings
9
Page 9
Acquisition Act, 1971 and the unit was vested with the U.P. State
Sugar Corporation.
th
30. Till 28 November, 1984, the Company was the owner of the
units/Sugar Mill. It was in arrears to the extent of Rs.1.29
crores. Therefore, the District Collector, Meerut attached
remaining five constituent units and the General Manager of the
sugar unit was appointed as a Receiver. In between 1979 and 1984,
the State Government extended a facility of loan to the extent of
Rs.6.13 crores to the Receiver appointed by the State Government
for smooth functioning of the Sugar Mill, including payment of
dues to sugarcane grower, repairing of machinery, etc. It is also
not in dispute that labour and other dues were payable by the
Company apart from Sale Tax dues and the loan was given by the
State Government between 1977-1984 for payment of such dues.
st
31. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 1 March, 2011,
though noticed the aforesaid facts including the fact that the
th
Collector, Tulsi Gaur by order dated 20 February, 1992 held that
there were dues of about Rs.10.44 crores payable by the Company,
JUDGMENT
part of which can be adjusted from the compensation amount paid by
the Meerut Development Authority, even thereafter an amount of
Rs.6.09 crores will remain payable by the Company, but the High
Court failed to address such issue. The High Court though noticed
that Section 8 of the U.P. State Sugar Undertakings Acquisition
Act, 1971 empowers the prescribed authority to decide any dispute
regarding the amount payable to any person or authority in respect
of earlier liabilities of the undertaking, but it wrongly held
10
Page 10
that in view of the provisions of the U.P. Sugar Undertakings
Acquisition Act, 1971 any liability incurred by the Company or
loan etc. taken by the receiver is not payable by the Company.
32. It is always open to the competent authority to seek recovery
of the amount if due from the Company or to adjust the dues.
33. The Collector, Tulsi Gaur was not a party by name. The order
th
dated 20 February, 1992 passed by the Collector was also not
under challenge, inspite of the same the High Court declared the
th
order dated 20 February,1992 as illegal.
st
34. For the reason aforesaid, the impugned order dated 1 March,
2011 passed by the High Court in W.P. No.10220 of 1996 etc. cannot
be upheld. The same is accordingly set aside. The matter is
remitted to the District Collector, Meerut to determine the
th
liability of the Company upto the date of vesting i.e. 28
October, 1984 after notice to the parties. The authority while so
determining shall take into consideration the liability of the
th
Company as on 28 October, 1984, including labour charges, Sales
Tax, loan amount given by the State Government etc. if payable.
JUDGMENT
After determination of liabilities and adjustment of the dues
which is payable by the Company, if any amount is found payable to
the Company, the appellant shall pay the amount within four months
from the date of determination. On the other hand, if any amount
is found payable by the Company, the Competent authority may
recover the amount, in accordance with law.
C.A.No.7122 of 2003, C.A.Nos.7123-7124 of 2003 and C.A.No.7125 of
2003.
11
Page 11
35. For determination of the issue involved in C.A. Nos.7122 of
2003, 7123-7124 of 2003, 7125 of 2003 and 7126-7129 of 2003
relevant factual matrix of the case is as follows:
After giving credit of Rs.4.33 crores payable by the State
Government on account of amounts towards compensation for
acquisition of land, the liability of the Company was determined
th
at Rs.6.09 crores on 20 February, 1992. A sale proclamation was
accordingly issued. The land of the Company measuring 1.391
Hectares in village Maliyana was put to auction. The appellants-
M/s. Rudra Estate Pvt. Ltd. and another were the highest bidders.
According to Auction purchasers, the entire amount was paid as per
highest bid. Title to the land was also transferred in their
favour.
36. The Company being aggrieved preferred a Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No.16451 of 1999 before the High Court of Judicature at
th
Allahabad challenging the sale proclamation dated 28 March, 1992,
th
order dated 30 May, 1992 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
JUDGMENT
Meerut confirming the sale of the properties owned by the Company
th
and the order dated 5 April, 1999 passed by the Commissioner,
Meerut Division, Meerut whereby the objections filed by the
Company under Rule 285-1 of the Rules framed under U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the
“Land Reforms Act”) was rejected. The said writ petition was
allowed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and
th
order dated 27 April, 2001 with following observations:
12
Page 12
“For the facts and reasons stated above, this
petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order
dated 05.04.1999 (annexure-23), order dated 30.05.1992
(Annexure-7), sale proclamation dated 28.3.1992
(Annexure-2) are hereby quashed and the respondents are
directed to restore back status quo ante as on before
the auction sale dated 28.04.1992 was held, within a
period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of
this order is communicated to the competent authority.”
37. M/s. Rudra Estate Pvt. Ltd. being aggrieved by the said
judgment preferred review application under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC
th
for review of the judgment and order dated 27 April, 2001 passed
by the High Court. The review application was disposed of by an
rd
order dated 3 September, 2001 with the following observations:
“In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, in my opinion, it will meet the ends of
justice if I grant three months time to the respondent
no.2 and 3 to refund the amount in question to the
auction purchasers/application, during this time the
said amount shall positively be paid to them. It is
ordered accordingly.”
Another application was filed by M/s. Rudra Estate Pvt. Ltd.
rd
under Order XIVII Rule 1 CPC for review of the order dated 3
JUDGMENT
September, 2001. The said review application was dismissed by the
th
impugned judgment dated 15 March, 2002.
38. The aforesaid orders have been challenged in C.A. No.7122 of
2003 (M/s. Rudra Estate Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. M/s. Jaswant Sugar
Mills Ltd. & Ors.), C.A. Nos. 7123-7124 of 2003, C.A. No.7125 of
2003 (Shri Munindra Singh & Anr. vs. M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd.
& Ors.) and C.A. Nos.7126-7129 of 2003 (Commissioner, Meerut
Division, Meerut vs. M/s Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd.).
13
Page 13
th
On 30 October, 2002 C.A. No.7122 of 2003 preferred by M/s.
Rudra Estate Pvt. Ltd. was taken up and this Court passed the
following order:
“Delay condoned.
Out of the 3 special leave petitions, the only
special leave petition which we find worth being
entertained, after hearing the learned senior counsel
for the petitioners, is as against the order dated
15.3.2002. Issue notice to respondents No.2 to 4 only
limited to the question as to why the amount directed
to be refunded to the petitioner should not bear
reasonable interest. Dasti service in addition is
permitted.
The other two special leave petitions are
dismissed.”
th
On 24 January, 2003, C.A. Nos. 7123-24 of 2003 preferred by
Shri Munindra Singh & Anr. were taken up and this Court passed the
following order:
“Delay condoned .
Permission to file the Special Leave Petition is
granted.
JUDGMENT
After hearing the learned counsel for the
petitioners, we are satisfied that no fault can be
found with the impugned judgment of the High Court so
far as the setting aside of the sale is concerned.
The learned counsel for the petitioners invites
our attention to the Order dated 20.10.2002 (page 94C
of the Paper Book). Issue notice to respondent nos.1 to
4 limited to the question as to why the amount which
will be directed to be refunded to the petitioners
herein consequent upon the sale having been set aside
should not bear reasonable interest.
Tag with SLP(C)No.21540/2002.”
14
Page 14
39. As against the said order C.A. Nos. 7126-29/2003
(Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut & Ors. Vs. M/s. Jaswant
Sugar Mills Ltd.) have been preferred by the Commissioner, Meerut
Division, Meerut. The said case was also tagged with the aforesaid
appeals.
th
40. In view of the fact that this Court vide order dated 27
April, 2003 in C.A. Nos. 7123-7124 of 2003 held that this Court is
satisfied that no fault can be found with the impugned judgment of
the High Court so far as the setting aside of the sale is
concerned, we dismiss the appeals, so far it relates to
cancellation of auction sale.
41. We have heard the parties only on the limited question as to
why the amount which has been directed to be refunded to the
auction purchasers-appellants herein should not bear reasonable
interest.
42. In a situation like in the present case, one cannot hold of
any statute entitling the auction purchasers to claim interest, in
JUDGMENT
case the auction got cancelled or set aside by the Court of law.
Counsel for the parties also could not refer any of the clauses of
auction prescribing interest on refund of amount in case of
cancellation of auction or sale. The question arises as to whether
in such a situation an auction purchaser can claim interest on
equitable ground.
43. In State of Maharashtra and others vs. Maimuma Banu and
others, (2003) 7 SCC 448, the question arose as to whether interest
15
Page 15
was payable on rental compensation. In the said case, Government
resolution provided for payment of rental compensation
expeditiously but no provision was made to pay interest in case of
delayed payment. This Court in the said case held:
“10. The crucial question is whether there can
be any direction for interest on rental
compensation once it is held that the same has to
be paid within the time frame, notwithstanding the
fact that there is no statutory obligation.
11. It is not in dispute that in certain cases
payments have already been made. Though the
inevitable conclusion is that the High Court is
not justified in directing grant of interest on
the logic of various provisions contained in the
Act, yet there is an element of equity in favour
of the landowners. It is, however, seen that the
writ applications were filed long after the
possession was taken. This factor cannot be lost
sight of while working out the equities. It would,
therefore, be appropriate if the appellants pay
interest @ 6% from 1-4-2000 till amounts payable
as rental compensation are paid to the landowners
concerned. This direction shall not apply to those
cases where the payments have already been made
prior to 1-4-2000. Appeals are allowed to the
extent indicated without any stipulation of
costs.”
JUDGMENT
44. In the present case, we find that there was no mis-
representation on the part of the auction purchasers; they
deposited the total auction amount within the time stipulated. It
has not been in dispute that the title of the land was also
transferred in their favour. But for the reasons mentioned by the
High Court the sale has been cancelled. It has been ordered to
refund amount in favour of the auction purchaser-appellant(s). We
find no reason as to why on equitable grounds the appellants
16
Page 16
should not get interest on the said amount. Taking into
consideration the aforesaid factor while working out equities, it
would, therefore, be appropriate to direct the State to pay
interest at the rate of 6% on the amount to be refunded as per the
th rd
High Court’s order with effect from 27 April, 2001 and 3
September, 2001, the day, the High Court passed the impugned
order. The concerned respondents are directed accordingly.
45. C.A. Nos. 6169-6171 of 2013, C.A. Nos. 6172-6174 of 2013,
C.A.No.7122 of 2003, C.A.Nos.7123-7124 of 2003, C.A.No.7125 of
2003 are allowed in terms of the directions as above. The appeals
(C.A.Nos.7126-7129 of 2003) filed by the Commissioner, Meerut are
dismissed. No costs.
……………………………………………………………………….J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
……………………………………………………………………….J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
JUDGMENT
NEW DELHI,
JUNE 30, 2014.
17
Page 17