Holding

The Court held that the industries must surrender the surplus land to the DDA as directed in the 1996 order, without any claim to compensation under Section 15, and that the DDA may seek execution of the order if surrender is not made voluntarily.

Summary

The Supreme Court was urged to enforce its May 10, 1996 order directing hazardous, noxious, heavy and large industries in Delhi to shift and surrender surplus land to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) without compensation. The petitioners argued that the earlier order implied acquisition under Section 15 of the Delhi Development Authority Act, which would require payment of compensation, while the respondents contended that the surrender was to be free of cost as per the Court's direction. The Court held that the earlier order was clear that the land must be surrendered voluntarily and that the DDA was not bound to acquire it under Section 15 with compensation. It further observed that the industries had been warned and given the benefit of increased floor‑area ratio, which offset any loss of land, and that the principle of res judicata does not bar enforcement of the order. Consequently, the Court directed that all required industries must surrender the land within a month, failing which the DDA may file execution applications before the District Judge, who shall enforce the order and report compliance.

Issues considered

Whether the Delhi Development Authority must acquire the surplus land of shifted industries under Section 15 of the Delhi Development Authority Act and pay compensation.
Whether the Supreme Court's 1996 order requiring surrender of land free of cost is enforceable and can be executed against non‑compliant industries.
Whether the principle of res judicata bars the petitioners from seeking enforcement of the earlier order.

Subjects

environmental lawhazardous industriesland surrenderDelhi Development AuthorityMaster Plan 1990public interest litigationcompensationexecution of court order

Judgment

M.C.MEHTA A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

APRIL 28, 2000

[B.N. KIRPAL AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] B

Environmental Law :

Haz.ardous/noxiouslheavy and large industries-Situated in Delhi-Shift-
ing/Relocation of-Land vacated-Use of-Directions to summder required
portion of land to DDA--Contention that DDA should acquire such land under
c
s. 15 of Delhi Development Act-Rejected-Earlier order of Supreme Court
dated 10.5.1996 explained-Industries directed to voluntarily surrender the
land to DDA-If they do not do so, DDA to file execution applications before
District Judge Delhi who shall thereupon execute the order dated 10.5.1996
and report compliance. D
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Others, [1996) 4 SCC 351, ex-
plained.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, [1997) 11 SCC 327, referred to.
E
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 129

IN

I.A. No. 22
F
IN

Writ petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985.

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Harish N. Salve, Solicitor General, K.K. Venugopal, Parag P. Tripathi, G
Dushyant A. Dave, G.L. Sanghi, Jaspal Singh, N.N. Goswami, Bachawat,
S.B. Sanyal, A.K. Panda, (Ranjit Kumar) (AC), (M.C. Mehta)-in-person for
Petitioner, Ms. Seema Midha, S. Sukumaran, J.B. Dadachanji, B.K. Khurana,
A.T. Patra, Jaideep Gupta, Ms. Punita Singh, Ratnesh, Pakesh K. Khanna, Ms.
Pallavi Chaudhary, Surya Kant, K.C. Kaushik, S.N. Terdol, (Vijay Panjwani) H
851
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.

A (CPCB), D.N. Goburdhan, Ms; GeetaLuthra, Ms. Pinky Anand, V.B. Saharya,
Ms. Sheil Sethi, R.S. Suri, Jagjit S. Chhabra, E.C. Agrawala, Sushi! Kumar
Jain, R.C. Verma, C. Siddharth, Ashok K. Gupta, Farrukh Rashid, Pankaj
Kalra, Dinesh Mathur, Nidhesh Gupta, Nishakant, Ms. Naresh Bakshi, M.L.
Lahoty, Paban K Sharma, Himanshu Shekhar, Jeevan Prakash, L.P. Aggarwala,
K.M.K. Nair, B.S. Banthia, Dhruv Mehta, S.K: Mehta, Ms. Shobha, Abhishek
B
Atrey, Ashwani Bhardwaj, S.P. Sharma, Dr. J.N. Singh, Naresh Kumar, Anil
Shrivastav, Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Mukhesh Jain, Imtiaz Ahmed, R.D.
Upadhyay, K.K. Patil R.P. Wadhwani, Maninder Singh, Ms. Pratibha, M.
Singh, Ms. Kavita Wadia, C.V. Subba Rao, S.K. Dwivedi, Manrnohan, Ms.
Bina Gupta, Tapash K. Singh, Ms. Vanita Bhargava, J.D. Jain, Rajiv Dutta,
c Ashok Kumar Chopra, P.S. Jha, R.B. Misra, Navin Chawla, Rajiv Nanda,
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Ms. Nandini Gore, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Rajiv Sharma,
J.K. Das, Ms. Indira Sawhney, Ms. Mad.bu Sikri, Ramesh Babu M.R., K.C.
Dua, Ramesh N. Keshwani, S.K. Verma, A.K. Sanghi, Uma Nath Singh, (R.L.
Aggarwal)-in-person, Mohinder Singh, Bimal Roy Jad, D.K. Garg, Anuj
D Ahuja, Y.P. Dhingra, B.K. Satija, Praveen Swarup, S.K. Sabharwal, Ms. Rani
Chhabra, C.L. Sethi and M.A. Chinnaswamy for the appearing parties.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

This is an application where the main prayer is that the order of this
E Court dated 10th May, 1996 should be ordered to be implemented. By the said
decision reported as M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors, [1996] 4 SCC
351, this Court, inter alia, directed that in respect of hazardous/noxious/heavy
and large industries, there should be compliance with the Master Plan of Delhi
which came into effect in 1990. With regard to the hazardous industry which
F was existing in Delhi, the said Master Plan required that the industry should
shift wi_thin three years. As far as heavy and large industri~s were concerned,
the Master Plan did not permit any new heavy or large industry to be set up
and with regard to the existing heavy and large industrial units, it was stated
that they shall shift to Delhi Metropolitan Area and the National ,Capital
Region keeping in view the National Capital Region Plan and National
G
Industrial Policy of the Government of India. The land which was to be
vacated by such units was to be utilised according to the provisions of the
Master Plan.

In the aforesaid decision, it was directed that in accordance with the
H provisions of the Master Plan, the hazar4oustnoxious/heavy and large indus-
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 853

..... ;x tries must shift after closing their units. this Court considered the proposal of A
the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) which had contemplated some
portion of land which would become vacant on the shifting/relocation of the
industry being developed by the DDA, the balance being used by the owner
for housing facilities and another percentage of land being used by the owner
for residential or commercial use according to the Master Plan. This Court,
B
however, after taking into consideration the report of the Land Allotment
Committee as well as a report of Mr. Justice D.R. Khanna (Retd.), who was
the Chairperson of the Land Use Advisory Committee, ordered that the
land which would become available on account of shifting/relocation of
hazardous/noxious/heavy and large industries should be used in the following
manner: c
SI. Extent Percentage· to be Percentage to be
No. surrendered and developed by the
dedicated to the owner for his own
DDA for development benefit in accordance
D
of green belts and with the user permit-
other spaces ted under the Master Plan

2 3 4
.... l. Up to 2000 sq. mts. 100% to be developed E
(including the first by the owner
2000 sq. mts. of the in accordance with the
larger plot) zoning regulations of
the Master Plan

2. 0.2 ha to 5 ha 57 43 F
3. 5 ha to 10 ha 65 35

4. Over IO ha 68 32

The Court further observed as under at page 362 : G
"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, ho,wever, direct that on the percentage of land as
shown in colwnn 4 of the owners at Serial Nos. 2, 3 and 4 shall be
entitled to one and a half times of the permissible FAR under the H
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A Master Plan."

The grievance of Mr. M.C. Mehta is that though the industries
have been closed a large number of them have not surrendered the excess
land to DDA. Notice was issued to the industries and affidavits have been
B filed.

On behalf of the industries, we have heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Senior
Advocate and other senior counsel at length. The main contention which has
been raised is that this Court never contemplated that the land would be
surrendered free of cost. The submission was that under Section 15 of the
c Delhi Development Act, the said Authority has power to acquire the land for
the purposes of the Act and when this Court had directed that the land should
be surrendered, the implication clearly was that the DDA would have to
acquire the land under Section 15 and pay compensation in respect thereof. j.-
Our attention was also drawn to Writ Petition (Civil) No. 108 of 1999 (Ml
D s. Biral Textiles & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.) filed under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India and it was submitted that in that writ petition one
of the contentions which was raised was that in respect of smrender of land
compensation was payable, and the same had been refe1red to a Constitution
Bench and was pending.
E
When this Court first passed the order on 10th May, 1996, it bad before
it the report of Mr. Justice D.R. Khanna and had the advantage of hearing
several counsel over a 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
F 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. The Court nevertheless directed the surplus land not to be acquired
by the DDA 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 the FAR
would stand increased to "one and a half times of the permissible FAR under
G the Master Plan". It is true that the Court did not direct any compensation
to be paid in respect of the land which was required to be surrendered, but
this element of compensation was clearly present in the mind of the Court
when it increased the FAR and permitted the owner to build more than what
was permissible under the Master Plan. It is not possible, therefore, to accept
H the contention that the DDA is bound to acquire the land under Section 15
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 855
after paying compensation. A
Be that as it may, there is nothing to indicate in the order 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 the DDA should be asked to
acquire the land under Section 15. Mr. C.L. Sanghi, learned senior counsel B
submits that in a matter like this 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 for the
land which was to be surrendered. Perhaps they were happy to have an C
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 8th July, 1996 reported as [1996] 4. sec 750 (at page 762), it was
observed as follows :

" .............. In view of the huge increase of prices ofland in Delhi, D
the reuse of the vacant land is bound to bring lots of money which
can meet the cost of relocation."

Be that as it may, we do not think that it is appropriate at this juncture
to permit the erstwhile owners of land to raise the contention that they should
E
be paid compensation.

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 F
of time. If the industries continued to use the land in violation of and in
disregard 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 would have been
entitled to retain all the land, but because the pleasure has been effected as
a result of the order of this Court, the owners have had to surrender part of
G
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, that, as is always the case, would
have been more profitable.

The pendency of Writ Petition (C) No. 108 of 1999 does not, in our H
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A opinion, stand in the way of this Court dealing with this application and
disposing of the contentions raised before us.

Coming to the prayers of Mr. M.C. Mehta, we hereby direct that within
one month, all the industries which are required to surrender the land in te1ms
of this Court's order dated 10th May, 1996 should voluntarily surrender
B the same to the Delhi Development Authority. If this is not done, the
DDA will be duty bound to file application(s) for execution of this Court's
order before the District Judge, Delhi and the District Judge, Delhi
shall thereupon execute this Court's order dated 10th May, 1996 and report
compliance within four weeks of the filing of the execution application(s).
c The execution application(s) should be filed by the DDA not later than eight
weeks from today.

It has been brought to our notice that pursuant to the order dated 10th
May, 1996, another order dated 4th December, 1996 reported as [1997] 11
sec 327 has been passed whereby it has been ordered as follows : ~
D
"We see considerable force in the contention of the learned
Additional Solicitor General on the second point also. The existing
hazardous industries having been closed, what remains is the plot,
superstrncture and the workmen. The occupants of the plots and the
owners of the industries which have been closed down shall have to
E undertake fresh procedw-e for setting up of the new industry. Needless
to say that no industry can be set up which is not permitted under the
Master Plan. The procedure required for setting up of a new industry
shall have to be followed in every case. We make it clear that
Government permission and the consent from the Pollution Control
F Board/Committee, if required under law, shall have to be obtained.
Even fresh electric connection and water connection shall have to be
applied for and obtained in the changed circumstances. We have no
doubt when approached for necessary permission/licence/water elec-
tric connections the authorities shall expedite in dealing with the
applications."
G
(Para 3)

It is quite evident that our direction with regard to the execution of the )'
order dated 10th May, 1996 deals only with the question of surrender of
land. The latter order dated 4th December, 1996 the relevant part of which
H has been quoted hereinabove only states, with reference to the industries
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 857
which did not want to relocate but intended to start new conforming A
industry/activity as to what has to be done by such occupants in order to
start new industry/activity.

- R.P.
IAs relating to brick kilns are to be listed separately and this order
is not to be given effect to qua them.

I.As. disposed of.
B