AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—In the original petition, which was filed on 30-12-1996, the Petitioner- Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (for short "BALCO") seeks following reliefs:
I. to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the allotment order dated 20-9-93 (Annexure-P/3) issued by Respondent No. 1.
II. to issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the demand made, R.R.C. issued by Respondent No. 3 by letter dated 8-12-93 (Annexure- P/4).
III. to issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the demand letter dated 16-12-1996 as also R.R.C. and revised R.R.C. dated 19-12-1993 (P-9), issued by Respondent No. 3 being without jurisdiction.
IV. to declare that Petitioner Company is liable to pay premium @ Rs. 200/- per acre and rent @ Rs. 20/- per acre per annum to the State Government.
V. to direct the Respondent No. 1 to produce the entire record for perusal on the basis of which allotment memo dated 20-9-93 (Annex. P-3) has been issued for perusal by the Hon''ble High Court.
VI. to grant any other relief deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Subsequently, BALCO filed an application being I.A. No. 203 W/97 on 13-1-1997 for deletion of relief clauses II and III, which was allowed by order dated 28-1-1997 and thereafter by order dated 11-8-1997 time was extended to comply with the order dated 28-1-1997 during the course of the said day. Thus, clauses II and III were accordingly deleted. Reply was filed on behalf of the Respondents on 6-11-1997 and thereafter rejoinder to the reply was filed and the same was taken on record 26-2-1998. BALCO filed an application i.e. I.A. No. 1873/2004 seeking amendment in the grounds i.e. from 6.8 to 6.12 and reliefs i.e. from VII and VIII. The relief clause reads as under:
VII. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No. 1 to enter into and execute a lease deed with the applicant in terms of the letter of allotment dated 18-3-1968 bearing D.O. No. 103 SCI/68; and/or
VIII. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the Respondents from talcing any action contrary to the terms of letter of allotment dated 18-3-1968 bearing D.O. No. 103/SCI/68 issued by the Department of Commerce and Industry.
By order dated 24-3-2004 the amendment application i.e. I.A. No. 1873/2004 was allowed, thereafter by order dated 16-4-2004 time was extended to comply with the order dated 24-3-2004 and the amendment was incorporated on 29-4-2004.
On 16-4-2004 this Court ordered as under:
In the above view of the matter, it is directed that no coercive action/steps may be taken against the Petitioner till the next date of hearing.
Certified copy after amendment is incorporated.
The aforesaid interim order was extended time and again till 6-7-2005. By disposing of M.(W.)P. No. 758/2004, the interim order was modified on 6-7-2005 in the following terms:
In view of the above situation, the Respondents are directed to maintain status quo, till the next date of hearing.
More amendments were sought for by BALCO in the cause title, pleadings i.e. from 5.14 to 5.26 and in the relief part i.e. from DC to XII by filing I.A. No. 6439/2005. The relief part reads as under:
IX. to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to produce the all proceedings relating to the applications made for 668.67 acres of land for which advance possession was given by the Government as is confirmed form the notices dated 21-6-2005 issued by the Tahsildar and the concerned records of the proceedings for transfer of the land from the Respondent No. 3, Tahsildar be called for the kind perusal of this Hon''ble Court, in the interest of justice.
X. to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the notices and subsequent proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar, Korba, vide the notices dated 21-6-2005 and 28-6-2005 (Annexure-P/17), in the interest of justice.
XI. to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing restraining the State Government from taking any coercive action/steps for dispossessing the Petitioner (BALCO) from land in its possession.
XII. Any other writ, order or direction as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued to protect the lawful interest of the Petitioner, in the interest of justice and fair play.
The amendment application i.e. I.A. No. 6439/2005 was allowed by order dated 26-7-2005. The interim order dated 6-7-2005 was modified by order dated 26-7-2005 as under:
... the Petitioner is also directed to maintain status quo in respect of the land, which is in its possession and should not involve in de-forestation activities in respect of the land, which is in Petitioner''s possession, and also should not try to encroach upon any extra Government land. This order is in addition to the earlier order passed on 6-7-2005. Order dated 6-7-2005 shall continue, till the next date of hearing.
BALCO filed one more application being I.A. No. 3 on 12-6-2007 for clarification of the order dated 26-7-2005. The same was disposed of by order dated 2-7-2007 in the following terms:
The earlier order dated 6-7-2005 was passed on the request of the Petitioner that the Tehsildar is forcing the Petitioner to vacate the land, which is in possession of the Petitioner company and vide that order, dated 6-7-2005 the Respondents were directed to maintain the status quo till the next date of hearing. Now if the Petitioner wants to raise any construction on the land in his possession and wants to have any other developmental activities on the land, it is for him to seek permission from the concerned authorities and it is for the concerned authorities to consider his case in accordance with law and pass necessary orders. As far as de-forestation on the land in possession of the Petitioner is concerned, the same has also to be carried out after seeking permission from the concerned authorities in accordance with law relating to forest and environmental laws.
The prayer clauses II and III which were deleted by order dated 11-8-1997 were included in the amended petition, which was filed on 17-8-2005, without an order of the Court.
I.A. No. 5/2001, application for intervention filed on behalf of Madan Singh Daharia, is dismissed for want of prosecution.
In the part heard matter, one Bupesh Baghel filed an application (I.A. No. 13) on 28-1-2009 for permission to intervene in the writ petition on the ground that the intervenor/applicant has filed an intervention application i.e. I.A. No. 1424-25 of 2005, W.P.(C) No. 202 of 1995