Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of Rajasthan vs Union Of India . on 15 December, 2017
Bench: Madan B. Lokur, Deepak Gupta
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No(s). 2202-2203/2013
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA . & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 20156/2012
SLP(C) No. 21220/2012
SLP(C) No. 36527/2012
SLP(C) No. 35934/2012
SLP(C) No. 36923/2012
SLP(C) No. 1486/2013
SLP(C) No. 1387/2013
SLP(C) No. 1484/2013
SLP(C) No. 8230/2013
O R D E R
An affidavit has been filed by Sangmarmar Khan Vikas Samiti. The deponent is Mohd. Ali s/o Shri Chhotuji Sisodiya. It is stated in the affidavit that there are 63 quarries of the members of the Petitioner Association situated on the old (now abandoned) Railway Track from Makarana-Bidiyad-Parbatsar (Rajasthan). The case of the 63 marble quarry owners is not related to the cases pertaining to the 11 marble quarry owners situated on Jaipur-Jodhpur Railway Track. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MEENAKSHI KOHLI Date: 2017.12.16 13:03:50 IST
For the purposes of diverting the Railway Track from Reason: mineral area of Makarana-Bidiyad-Parbatsar to a non mineral 1 area of Makrana to Bidiyad, a total amount of Rs. 15,48,40,942/- has been paid to the Department of Railway towards cost of the land and expenses of diversion activities. Out of this amount, the Petitioner Association has paid an amount of Rs.7,53,42,942/- while the Rajasthan Government has paid 7,94,98,000/-. Apart from this, the petitioner Association has also paid about Rs.1.7 crores towards compensation to be paid for the land acquired for new railway track. Consequently, a total amount of Rs.17,18,40,942 has been paid to the Railways/State.
It is further stated that the quarry owners at Sl. No. 42- Shri Kistru Ram, Sl. No. 43- Shri Hafiz Rahim Bux and Sl. No. 44 – Shri Liyakat Ali will pay the additional amount of compensation of Rs.1 crore each as per Direction No. 3 of the Rajasthan High Court contained in the impugned judgment dated 27.04.2012.
The time-frame for making this has not been stated in the affidavit. We direct that the payment be made under all circumstances on or before 30.06.2018. We make it clear that in case these three quarry owners do not make the payment, the petitioner Association and Mohd. Ali will be responsible for making the payment to the Railways by that date.
Apart from the above compensation, the petitioner 2 Association has given an undertaking to this Court to pay an amount of Rs. 3 crores as full, final one time compensation to be deposited by the petitioner Association within a period of 9 months in installments after the quarrying activities are resumed. The payment is required to be made to the Railways. We accept the undertaking given by the petitioner Association but make it clear that the additonal amount of Rs.3 crores is to be paid on or before 30.06.2018.
We make it clear that it is not as if the payment is dependent on the commencement of quarrying activities by all the members of the petitioner Association. Even if one or more quarry owners do not commence quarrying, the liability will still be that of the petitioner Association and Mohd. Ali. The liability is to be discharged in any event by 30.06.2018. Mr. S.S. Shamshery, learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan says that the possession of the quarries will be given within a period of four weeks from today. Even if there is some delay in handing over possession of the quarries, the time line of 30.06.2018 will remain unchanged. We make it clear that the statutory clearances will be given by the State of Rajasthan only in accordance with law. The members of the petitioner Association will abide by the law including any clearances that are required to be obtained at 3 their instance, including those relating to air, water and other environmental issues.
There is no objection to the affidavit either from the State of Rajasthan or the Railways. In fact they agree with the terms, as submitted by learned counsel, subject to the modifications made by us. The affidavit is therefore accepted. The High Court in the impugned judgment and order had directed an inquiry by the CBI. That inquiry was stayed by this Court by an order dated 07.01.2013. In view of the agreement between the parties and the passage of time, we confirm the interim order. However, we make it clear that in case there is any misuse or any violation of any law by any of the quarry owners or by anybody else, the inquiry may be revived. Liberty is granted to move an appropriate application in this regard. We are also informed that certain contempt proceedings have been initiated. In view of the agreement between the parties, the proceedings are dropped. [[[ In view of the above, the civil appeal and the special leave petitions stand disposed of and the judgment and order passed by the High Court is modified accordingly. 4 We make it clear that the petitions pertaining to Jaipur-Jodhpur region i.e. SLP (C) Nos. 24944/2012, 24923/2012, 24922/2012, 23872/2012, 24908/2012 and 31983/2012 will be taken up separately. The State of Rajasthan is at liberty to raise all appropriate contentions in these matters. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
…....................J. [MADAN B. LOKUR] …....................J. [DEEPAK GUPTA] NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 15, 2017
5
ITEM NO.66 COURT NO.4 SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 2202-2203/2013 THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA . & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 20156/2012 (XV) (IA No.114300/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.114307/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 21220/2012 (XV) (FOR EX-PARTE STAY ON IA 4/2014 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 36527/2012 (XV) SLP(C) No. 35934/2012 (XV) SLP(C) No. 36923/2012 (XV) SLP(C) No. 1486/2013 (XV) SLP(C) No. 1387/2013 (XV) SLP(C) No. 1484/2013 (XV) SLP(C) No. 8230/2013 (XV) Date : 15-12-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA For Appellant(s) Ms. Madhurima Tatia, AOR Ms. Shaila Choudhary, Adv.
Mr. R.M. Tatia, Adv.
Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, Adv.
Mrs. Naghma Imtiaz, Adv.
Mr. Ahmed Zargham, Adv.
Ms. Amra Moosavi, Adv.
For M/S. Equity Lex Associates 6 Ms. K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. S.S. Shamshery, AAG Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Raj, Adv.
Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv.
Mr. Milind Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR Mr. A.K. Panda, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Adv.
Ms. Alka Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Raj Bahadur, Adv.
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. Nishesh Sharma, Adv.
Mr. M.K. Maroria, Adv.
Ms. K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, AOR Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AOR Ms. Pragati Neekhra, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The civil appeal and the special leave petitions are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications are disposed of.
(MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (KAILASH CHANDER) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
[Signed order is placed on the file] 7