Summary of the Judgement
Case Name: M/s. Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd. v. Mast Ram & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeal No.: 10662 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 14286 of 2022)
Date: 20th September 2024
Judges: Hon'ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon'ble Justice Manoj Misra
Advocates:
Mr. Navin Pahwa (Senior Counsel) for the Appellant
Mr. Biju P. Raman (Counsel) for the Respondents (Nos. 1-6)
Mr. Puneet Rajta (Addl. Advocate General) for Respondent No. 10
Mr. Ranjit Kumar (Senior Counsel) for Respondent No. 11
Acts and Sections:
Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956
Sections 4, 6, 7, 11, and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India
Cited Judgments:
Premlal & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Chunni Lal & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. Tonnu Ram (SLP (C) (Diary) No. 42997 of 2019)
Roy Estate v. State of Jharkhand, (2009) 12 SCC 194
Union of India v. Mahendra Girji, (2010) 15 SCC 682
Mansaram v. S.P. Pathak, (1984) 1 SCC 125
Kukreja Construction Company & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2547
Introduction
This article delves into the recent Supreme Court judgement dated 20th September 2024, concerning M/s Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd. v. Mast Ram & Ors., a case dealing with the dispute over the payment of compensation under a supplementary award linked to land acquisition proceedings. The legal conflict emerged over who bore the liability—whether M/s Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd. (the Appellant) or M/s Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL, Respondent No. 11)—in paying compensation to the original landowners, Respondent Nos. 1-6.
In this decision, Hon'ble Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra provided crucial guidance on corporate liabilities in land acquisition disputes and reaffirmed the government's duty under Article 300-A to ensure fair compensation to landowners.
Factual Background
The controversy originates from a land acquisition undertaken by the State of Himachal Pradesh in 2008 to provide a "safety zone" for a cement project managed by JAL. Notifications were issued under Sections 4, 6, and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The landowners, dissatisfied with the compensation, sought legal recourse, leading to the High Court staying the acquisition process in 2011.
In 2016, the High Court lifted the stay and allowed the acquisition, which enabled the Land Acquisition Collector, Arki (Respondent No. 10) to pass the award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act and Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, determining compensation at approximately ₹10.77 crores. However, the compensation for standing crops and structures was deferred for a supplementary award, which was later issued in 2022.
Complicating the matter further, a Scheme of Arrangement between JAL and Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd. was sanctioned in 2017, whereby JAL transferred its cement plant to Ultra-Tech, leaving unresolved the issue of whether Ultra-Tech inherited the liabilities of the disputed land acquisition.
Legal Issues
The primary legal questions that the Supreme Court had to address were:
Whether the land and its associated liabilities were transferred to Ultra-Tech Cement under the Scheme of Arrangement.
Whether Ultra-Tech Cement or JAL was legally obliged to pay compensation under the Supplementary Award.
Whether the land should be returned to the original landowners under Section 101 of the 2013 Act due to alleged non-utilisation.
Whether the State of Himachal Pradesh had a responsibility to ensure full payment of compensation under Article 300-A of the Constitution.
Analysis
1. Scheme of Arrangement Between JAL and Ultra-Tech Cement
The Scheme of Arrangement was pivotal in deciding the liability. According to Clause 7.1 of the Scheme, "All legal or other proceedings by or against the Transferor [JAL] initiated on or arising before the Effective Date [29th June 2017] would remain with JAL." The Court emphasised that the acquisition proceedings and any compensation liabilities were clearly part of this clause since they arose before the Effective Date.
The Court held that since JAL had already paid the compensation under the 2018 Award without dispute, it was inappropriate for JAL to argue that Ultra-Tech should now bear the burden for the Supplementary Award.
“The subject land and liabilities arising from it cannot be imposed on the Appellant solely based on the argument that the land was integral to the cement project when it was never transferred under the Scheme.”
2. Liability for Compensation
Despite JAL’s attempts to offload liability onto Ultra-Tech, the Court found that Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd. did not hold ownership of the land in question and was not a party to the original acquisition process. Therefore, JAL, which had benefitted from the land acquisition, could not avoid responsibility for the compensation.
The judgment reinforces that corporate restructuring does not nullify pre-existing liabilities unless explicitly mentioned in legal agreements. Since the land was not transferred to Ultra-Tech, the Court ruled that JAL remains responsible for paying the amount specified in the Supplementary Award.
3. Return of Land Under Section 101 of the 2013 Act
JAL argued that the land should be returned to the original landowners due to the delay in utilisation. The Court, however, rejected this contention, noting that the land had been continuously in use as a safety zone—a purpose explicitly outlined during acquisition.
"Returning the land would endanger the lives of the original landowners, defeating the very purpose for which the acquisition was made."
This part of the ruling underscores that Section 101 is not automatically applicable merely because land remains unused; the context of its acquisition is critical.
4. Role of the State Under Article 300-A
The Court heavily criticised the State of Himachal Pradesh for failing to fulfil its duty to ensure timely compensation. The delay in disbursing the compensation (over two years after the supplementary award) was seen as a violation of Article 300-A, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of their property without the authority of law.
"A welfare state must ensure that the rightful compensation is paid to landowners promptly and not allow them to suffer at the mercy of protracted litigation."
Conclusion
The Supreme Court overturned the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision and ruled in favour of Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd., confirming that JAL must pay the compensation determined under the Supplementary Award. Additionally, the State of Himachal Pradesh was directed to immediately pay the compensation to the original landowners and recover it from JAL.
The ruling highlights the importance of clarity in corporate arrangements regarding liabilities, the State’s role in protecting property rights, and the duty of care owed to landowners in land acquisition proceedings.
Comments