objection of the mining lessees to continue to pay 10% of the sale proceeds of mining to the Monitoring Committee for eventual transfer to the Special Purpose Vehicle (“SPV” for short) that has since been constituted to implement the Comprehensive Environment Plan for the Mining Impact Zone (“CEPMIZ” for short and hereinafter referred to as ‘the scheme’) in the Districts of Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur of the State of Karnataka.= Accordingly, for the present, we close the matter by reserving our views with regard to phasing out of the scheme in different parts; the precise point of time at which the works in each of such phases can and should be made operative; the sources of funds to be deployed for each of such phases and such other connected issues. All that we deem fit for the present is to call upon State of Karnataka and the CEC to submit a detailed proposal with regard to implementation of the Scheme of construction of conveyor belt system in respect of existing leases and the details of the project relating to the construction of railway sidings and railway sub- lines. No sooner the said proposal/report is filed before this Court, further orders will follow.

                                                                  REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                         CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

                                I.A. NO. 247,
                       I.A. NO. 250 IN I.A. NO. 247 AND
                         I.A. NO. 252 IN I.A. NO. 247
                                     IN
                      WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 562 OF 2009


SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA
& ORS.                             ...PETITIONER(S)
                            VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.          ...RESPONDENT(S)



                               J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI, J.



1.  Two related and connected issues have arisen for  determination  in  the
present interlocutory applications.

2.    The first is with regard to the objection of  the  mining  lessees  to
continue to pay 10% of  the  sale  proceeds  of  mining  to  the  Monitoring
Committee for eventual transfer to the Special Purpose  Vehicle  (“SPV”  for
short) that has  since  been  constituted  to  implement  the  Comprehensive
Environment Plan  for  the  Mining  Impact  Zone  (“CEPMIZ”  for  short  and
hereinafter referred to as  ‘the  scheme’)  in  the  Districts  of  Bellary,
Chitradurga and Tumkur of the State of Karnataka. For the present,  it  will
be sufficient to notice that this Court by its orders passed  from  time  to
time had directed the setting up  of  a  Special  Purpose  Vehicle  for  the
purpose of execution of ameliorative and mitigative works/measures  to  deal
with the large scale degradation of the environment that  had  occurred  due
to the unprecedented illegal mining that  had  taken  place  in  the  mining
leases operating in the aforesaid three districts at the relevant  point  of
time.  This Court had, from time to time, directed preparation of  a  scheme
outlining all the details of the  works  required  to  be   undertaken;  the
process of implementation of the same by implementing  agencies;  accounting
procedures  etc.  and  for  submission  of  the  same  to  this   Court   in
consultation with the Central Empowered Committee (“CEC”  for  short).  This
Court  was  also  of  the  view  that  the  funds  for  the  SPV  to  enable
ameliorative and mitigative measures to be undertaken, as per the CEPMIZ  to
be prepared, would primarily come from (a) 10% of the sale proceeds  of  the
minerals;  (b)  compensation  for  illegal  mining  etc.;  and   (c)   other
receivables by the Monitoring Committee to be directed to be transferred  to
the SPV from time to time.

3.  The various orders passed by this Court from time to time  had  received
final approval of this Court in  the  judgment  and  order  dated  18.4.2013
which finally terminated Writ Petition (C) No. 562  of  2009  titled  “Samaj
Parivartana Samudaya and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.[1]

4.    Pursuant to the aforesaid order(s), the Government  of  Karnataka  has
constituted a Special Purpose Vehicle known as Karnataka Mining  Environment
Restoration  Corporation  (“KMERC”  for  short)  on  13.06.2014   with   the
Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka as  the  Chairman.
The CEPMIZ i.e.  the  Scheme  has  since  been  prepared  and  is  presently
awaiting the approval of the Court which is  the  next/connected  aspect  of
the matter, for the present.

5.    Insofar as the first question is concerned, the  prayer  made  by  the
applicant, Federation of Indian Mining  Industry,  Southern  Region  (“FIMI-
Southern Region”) and duly supported by  another  lessee  M/s.  Vedanta,  in
short, is that after the Mines and  Minerals  (Development  and  Regulation)
Amendment Act 2015 had brought in Section 9B in the  Act  with  effect  from
12.1.2015 a District Mineral Foundation is required to be set  up  in  every
district affected by mining related operations. Under Section 9B(5) and  (6)
lessees are required to pay to the District Mineral  Foundation  (“DMF”  for
short) an amount equivalent to such percentage of royalty not exceeding one-
third of such royalty, as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

6.    The Ministry of Mines, Government of India  by  a  Notification  dated
17.09.2015 has prescribed  that  in  respect  of  leases  granted  prior  to
12.01.2015 the amount payable to the DMF shall be 30% of  the  royalty  i.e.
5.5% of the sale value (approx.) and in  respect  of  leases  granted  after
12.01.2005 the contribution to the DMF shall be @ 10% of  the  royalty  i.e.
1.5% of the sale value. Consequently, the leases in Category-A and Category-
B mines, presently, in addition to 10% of the  sale  value  payable  to  the
Monitoring Committee/SPV are required to pay about 4.5%  of  such  value  to
the District Mineral Foundation.  It is contended by FIMI-(Southern  Region)
that by  Notification  dated  11.01.2016  the  District  Mineral  Foundation
Rules, 2016 have been notified by the Government of Karnataka.  The  objects
of the District Mineral Foundation as prescribed in Rule 3 is as follows:
“3. Objects of Foundation.- The objects of the District  Mineral  Foundation
shall be to work for the interest and  benefit  of  the  persons  and  areas
affected by mining related operations in the districts  in  such  manner  as
may be prescribed by the State Government:-

(1) to implement various developmental and welfare projects or  programs  in
mining affected areas.

(2)         to minimize or mitigate the adverse impacts,  during  and  after
mining, on the environment, health and socio-economics of people  in  mining
districts; and

(3)         to ensure long-term  sustainable  livelihood  for  the  affected
people in mining areas”

“Rule 18 of DMF, 2016 prescribes the purpose for which the  funds  shall  be
used and which include drinking water supply, education,  welfare  of  women
and children, aged and  disabled  persons,  skill  development,  sanitation,
physical infrastructure, irrigation and energy and watershed development.”

7.    In the light of the aforesaid developments  it  is  contended  by  the
applicant in I.A. No. 247  that  the  object  behind  the  ameliorative  and
mitigative measures, in terms of  the  CEPMIZ  prepared  under  the  Court’s
orders issued, from time to time, is one and the same as the  object  behind
the creation of the District Mineral Foundation. Accordingly, the applicant-
FIMI (Southern Region) has prayed for clarification of  the  earlier  orders
of this Court to the effect that the  iron  ore  lessees  in  the  State  of
Karnataka will no longer be required to contribute 10% of the sale  proceeds
to the Monitoring Committee or the SPV from the date of which  said  lessees
have become liable to make payment to the District Mineral Foundation  under
Section 9B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act  2015,
as amended.


8.    In response, the Union of  India  and  the  State  of  Karnataka  have
opposed the grant of any relief/clarification, as prayed for  by  the  FIMI-
Southern Region. According to the  Union  of  India,  the  SPV  contemplated
under  the  orders  of  the  Court,  for  the  purpose  of  taking   various
ameliorative and mitigative measures  in  the  three  Districts,  which  has
since been established, is a sequel to the large  scale  plundering  of  the
environment and consequential socio-economic damage caused  to  this  region
by illegal mining that had taken place on an unprecedented scale. The  Union
of India has stated that taking note of  the  extraordinary  depredation  of
nature and environment that had occurred in the three  mining  districts  of
Karnataka, the SPV has been constituted by  the  Court  to  respond  and  to
repair, reconstruct and restore  nature  and  environment  in  its  pristine
form, as far as practicable.   It  was  to  answer  a  situation  which  was
extraordinary and  specifically  confined  to  the  mining  regions  of  the
districts  of  Bellary,  Chitradurga  and  Tumkur  that  the  SPV  has  been
constituted. In Paragraph 10 of the  affidavit  filed  on  5.9.2016  by  the
Union of India, it has been stated as follows:
“It is submitted that the District Mineral Foundation (DMF) as  contemplated
by Section 9B of the MMDR Act, 1957 is a body that has  been  envisaged  for
the benefit of mining affected areas and populations in  a  situation  where
mining is carried out in  a  responsible  manner,  within  the  limits,  and
subject to the conditions, laid down by  various  approvals  and  clearances
such as the forest  clearances  and  the  environment  clearances.  The  DMF
mechanism is applicable on a uniform basis across the country. It is  not  a
mechanism designed to deal with any area  specific  extraordinary  situation
arising out of large scale, irresponsible and reckless  mining  carried  out
with total disregard to the consequences on the environment as was the  case
in Karnataka.”


9.    Specifically, in paragraph 15 of the affidavit,  the  Union  of  India
has stated that:
“Considering all the above, it is clear that the DMF was never  intended  to
be, and can never actually work as, a substitute for the CEPMIZ.”


10.   The State of Karnataka has also filed its detailed objections  to  the
grant of any relief, as sought for by FIMI-Southern Region. In  addition  to
the stand taken by the Union of India in its affidavit, as noted above,  the
State of Karnataka has pointed out that the CEPMIZ  prepared  and  submitted
to the Court in consultation with the CEC proceeds  on  the  recommendations
of the CEC that henceforth the lessee should be directed to pay 5.5% of  the
sale proceeds to the Monitoring Committee/SPV (details in this regard  would
be  noticed  subsequently).  The  whole  CEPMIZ  Scheme,  particularly,  the
financial projections for successful implementation thereof has  been  drawn
up on that basis. Grant of the  prayer  made  by  the  FIMI-Southern  Region
would result in upsetting the entire scheme as a whole and would  jeopardize
its  contemplated/planned  implementation.  Furthermore,  according  to  the
State of Karnataka, any order of discontinuance of the contribution  to  the
Monitoring Committee/SPV  by  the  lessees  of  A  and  B  categories  would
seriously prejudice other lessees who have obtained leases recently and  who
would be obtaining such leases in future, inasmuch as, a percentage  of  the
sale proceeds for  such  leases  is  to  be  contributed  by  the  State  of
Karnataka and made available to the SPV. The  State  contends  that  such  a
situation would result in a highly  inequitable  position  inasmuch  as  the
existing lessees responsible, in a way, for  the  environmental  degradation
would not be  contributing  anything  further  to  the  SPV  in  undertaking
ameliorative and mitigative steps to restore  the  environment  whereas  new
leases e.g. category C lessees, who may not be so responsible, would  be  so
contributing.

11.   The CEC in  its  response  dated  27.04.2016,  however,  has  taken  a
slightly different view of the matter.  In  the  comprehension  of  the  CEC
there is a fair amount of overlapping between the objects  of  the  District
Mineral Foundation and the purpose for which the  Court  had  passed  orders
for creation of the SPV with the task outlined, as noticed above.  According
to the CEC, for existing leases, 30% of the  royalty  paid  presently  works
out roughly about 4.5% of  the  sale  proceeds.  Accordingly,  the  CEC  has
suggested that  the existing lessees may pay 5.5% of the  sale  proceeds  to
the Monitoring Committee/SPV (instead of 10%) and at the same time  continue
to discharge the statutory liability of  payment  to  the  District  Mineral
Foundation to the extent of 30% of the royalty, equivalent to about 4.5%  of
the sale proceeds.

12.   We have considered  the  matter.  We  have  also  taken  note  of  the
previous orders of this Court particularly the final order dated  18.04.2013
(Paragraph 37); the objects behind the amendment of the Mines  and  Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act by inclusion of the provisions  of  Section
9B; and also the notifications  issued  from  time  to  time  including  the
objects of the District Mineral Foundation as provided for by Rule 3 of  the
District Mineral Rules, 2016 notified by  the  Government  of  Karnataka  on
11.01.2016. Though, at first blush, it may appear that there is some  amount
of overlapping between the objects of the District  Mineral  Foundation  and
the purpose contemplated by the Court’s order in setting  up  the  SPV,  the
observations of this Court in Paragraph 37 of the judgment dated  18.04.2013
(supra) would make the position amply clear. The  statutory  enactments  and
exercises carried out subsequent to the Court’s order(s)  will  have  to  be
understood to be the expression of the legislative opinion of the  necessity
to meet the challenges of mineral exploitation that are  incidental  to  any
mining operation. Every mining activity results  in  baneful  effects  which
need to be corrected and destruction of environment that  inevitably  occurs
in the process needs to be mitigated. This is the specific reiteration  that
has been made by the amendment of the provisions of the Act  and  the  Rules
framed thereunder. What had happened in  Bellary,  Chitradurga  and  Tumkur,
has already been noticed by this Court  in  Paragraph  37  of  the  judgment
dated 18.04.2013 i.e. systematic, extraordinary  and  unprecedented  plunder
of the natural wealth and environment. This Court has specifically  observed
in paragraph 37 that “the situation being extraordinary the remedy,  indeed,
must also be extraordinary”. It  is  to  deal  with  such  an  extraordinary
situation that the necessity of  CEPMIZ  and  implementation  thereof  by  a
Special  Purpose  Vehicle  out  of  funds  in  credit  with  the  Monitoring
Committee  was  contemplated.  The  special  funds  in  deposit   with   the
Monitoring Committee being the proceeds of illegal mining were meant  to  be
deployed for  recreation  of  what  have  been  lost  due  to  such  illegal
activities. It is for the aforesaid purpose that CEPMIZ was required  to  be
drawn up and thereafter implemented. The  state  of  implementation  of  the
Scheme has not yet commenced. Funds in huge proportions would be  necessary.
A full and clear picture is yet to emerge.  In a situation lessees  who  may
be even remotely connected with the degradation and  destruction  of  nature
must  continue  to  pay  their  share  in  the  process  of  restitution  by
contributing to the Managing Committee from  their  present  sale  proceeds.
Even the new lessees who may not have been involved  with  such  degradation
are contributing to the process of reclamation and restoration.  In  such  a
situation, we do not see how we can vary or modify our earlier  orders  that
require all existing lessees to pay 10%  of  the  sale  proceeds  and/or  to
depart from the requirement of payment of what  has  been  already  ordered,
namely, 10% of the sale proceeds to the Monitoring Committee/SPV.


13.   In view of the aforegoing, Interlocutory Application No. 247  and  the
connected Interlocutory applications are dismissed.


14.   The second issue that has to be dealt with is with regard to grant  of
approval to the CEPMIZ which has been prepared by the  State  Government  in
consultation with the CEC in terms of the  various  orders  passed  by  this
Court from time to time.  The  aforesaid  Scheme,  if  approved,  is  to  be
implemented through  the  Special  Purpose  Vehicle  i.e.  Karnataka  Mining
Environment Restoration Corporation (“KMERC”  for  short)  which  has  since
been constituted.


15.   We have perused the CEPMIZ which has been presented before us  by  the
CEC by report dated 29.04.2016.  Very broadly speaking, the  works  proposed
under the Scheme can be divided into two broad  categories,  one  pertaining
to socio-economic development  and  the  other  for  integrated  mining  and
railway    infrastructure,    industrial    infrastructure    and    medical
infrastructure.  The  Chart  extracted  below   would   indicate   what   is
comprehended in the Scheme, the total  cost  projected  and  the  source  of
funds.
       EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN REFERENCE TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
                 CEPMIZ SCHEME (OVER A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS)
|SERI|CATEGORY OF EXPENDITURE        |AMOUNT     |  LOGISTICS       |FACT ON RECORD                                |
|AL  |                               |INCURRED   |                  |                                              |
|    |                               |(in crore  |                  |                                              |
|    |                               |rupees)    |                  |                                              |
|1   |I. Public Health               |410.94     |The entire sum of |The amount represented across the individual  |
|    |                               |           |7,142 crore rupees|category of utility infrastructure is further |
|    |                               |           |is borne by the   |divided by the SPV across the three districts |
|    |                               |           |Special Purpose   |of Bellary, Tumkur and Chitradurga after      |
|    |                               |           |Vehicle. The sum  |appropriately ascertaining the requirements on|
|    |                               |           |is spread across  |ground.                                       |
|    |                               |           |ten years and the |                                              |
|    |                               |           |SPV submits that  |                                              |
|    |                               |           |this sum is       |                                              |
|    |                               |           |sufficient to     |                                              |
|    |                               |           |implement the     |                                              |
|    |                               |           |utility           |                                              |
|    |                               |           |infrastructure    |                                              |
|    |                               |           |requirements of   |                                              |
|    |                               |           |the CEPMIZ.       |                                              |
|    |II. Education                  |442.27     |                  |                                              |
|    |III. Water Supply and Quality  |1,320.91   |                  |                                              |
|    |IV. Transport and Communication|2,252.66   |                  |                                              |
|    |V. Agriculture and allied      |573.14     |                  |                                              |
|    |activities                     |           |                  |                                              |
|    |VI. Drainage and Sanitation    |375        |                  |                                              |
|    |VII. Woman and Child Welfare   |403.59     |                  |                                              |
|    |VIII. Forest, Ecology and      |809.05     |                  |                                              |
|    |Environment                    |           |                  |                                              |
|    |IX. Strengthening the Forest   |70.97      |                  |                                              |
|    |Check-Posts                    |           |                  |                                              |
|    |X. Skill Development           |336.23     |                  |                                              |
|    |XI. Tourism                    |147.59     |                  |                                              |
|    |SUB-TOTAL                      |7,142.35   |                  |                                              |
|2   |I. Conveyor Belt System and    |2,900      |This amount is    |The SPV submits that it is advantageous and   |
|    |Railway Sidings                |           |completely borne  |economical for the lessees to move the        |
|    |                               |           |by the lessees    |iron-ore through the conveyor belt system. The|
|    |                               |           |holding mining-ore|SPV thus seeks a contribution of 2,900 crore  |
|    |                               |           |licenses.         |rupees from the lessees as their share on part|
|    |                               |           |                  |of mutual consideration.                      |
|    |II. Railway Sidings            |500        |This amount is    |The SPV is contributing a sum of 1,500 crore  |
|    |                               |           |completely borne  |rupees as their share towards the development |
|    |                               |           |by the SPV.       |of Mining and Rail Infrastructure within the  |
|    |                               |           |                  |CEPMIZ Scheme.                                |
|    |III. Railway Sub-Lines         |1,000      |                  |                                              |
|    |IV.                            |2,500      |The Indian        |The Indian Railways is executing this project |
|    |Tumkur-Chitradurga-Davanagere  |           |Railways is       |independently in order to strengthen the      |
|    |Railway Line                   |           |investing a sum of|Bengaluru-Mumbai Economic Corridor. The SPV is|
|    |                               |           |1,000 crore rupees|contributing a sum of 1,500 crore rupees      |
|    |                               |           |within this       |within this project, since the completion of  |
|    |                               |           |project and the   |the same would greatly benefit the effective  |
|    |                               |           |SPV is            |implementation of the CEPMIZ Scheme.          |
|    |                               |           |contributing a sum|                                              |
|    |                               |           |of 1,500 crore    |                                              |
|    |                               |           |rupees.           |                                              |
|    |SUB-TOTAL                      |6,900      |                  |                                              |
|3   |Industrial Infrastructure      |750        |This amount is    |An industrial project, costing to the tune of |
|    |                               |           |completely borne  |1537 crore rupees, is already underway across |
|    |                               |           |by the SPV.       |the Bellary-Tumkur-Chitradurga area. This     |
|    |                               |           |                  |project is executed by the Karnataka          |
|    |                               |           |                  |Industrial Area Development Board (‘KIADB’).  |
|    |                               |           |                  |Since this project is situated within the     |
|    |                               |           |                  |mining-affected area, the SPV is contributing |
|    |                               |           |                  |a sum of 750 crore rupees as their share of   |
|    |                               |           |                  |the consideration.                            |
|4   |Medical Infrastructure         |950        |This amount is    |The SPV is investing a collective sum of 700  |
|    |                               |           |completely borne  |crore rupees to open two new medical colleges |
|    |                               |           |by the SPV.       |within the districts of Tumkur and            |
|    |                               |           |                  |Chitradurga. The SPV also intends to upgrade  |
|    |                               |           |                  |the Vijaynagar Institute of Medical Sciences  |
|    |                               |           |                  |at Bellary. A sum of 250 crore rupees has been|
|    |                               |           |                  |earmarked for the maintenance of medical      |
|    |                               |           |                  |infrastructure.                               |
|5   |GRAND TOTAL                    |15,742.35  |The Cost of implementing the Comprehensive Environmental Plan for|
|    |                               |           |the Mining Impact Zone.                                          |

16.   Out of the Rs. 15,742.35 crores which is envisaged as the  total  cost
of implementation of the CEPMIZ  over  a  period  of  10  years,  the  funds
presently available and that would be forthcoming in the future  so  far  as
the SPV is concerned, as indicated in the report of the CEC, is as follow.
|SERIAL |SOURCE                                               |AMOUNT         |
|       |                                                     |(in crore      |
|       |                                                     |rupees)        |
|1      |Funds transferred from the Monitoring Committee;     |7,000          |
|       |amounting from 10% to 20% of the annual sale proceeds|               |
|       |of the iron-ore facilitated through the e-Auction    |               |
|       |Committee of the CEC                                 |               |
|2      |Funds received from yearly receipt of 5.5% of total  |1,624          |
|       |iron-ore sale effected by mining-ore lessees holding |               |
|       |license in Category ‘A’ and ‘B’, after the           |               |
|       |commencement of mining operation (payments spanning  |               |
|       |across a period of ten years)                        |               |
|3      |Funds received from the State Government of          |1,712          |
|       |Karnataka, at a premium rate of 25% of sale-value,   |               |
|       |effected after the renewal/sale/auction of mining-ore|               |
|       |licenses within Category ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’            |               |
|TOTAL                                                         |10,336         |

17.   The above would indicate that while a total of Rs.  11,842  Crores  is
the cost that is proposed to be incurred by the SPV,  keeping  in  view  the
amount available, as mentioned above, i.e. Rs. 10,336  Crores,  there  is  a
shortfall of Rs. 1,560 Crores. The same is contemplated to  be  made  up  by
cost savings and reduction in project cost; interest accruing  on  different
amounts from time to time and on a possible expectation of an  over-estimate
of the costs calculated under different heads.

18.   The CEC in its report and the learned Amicus  Curiae  in  his  written
note submitted jointly with the CEC has suggested that  the  scheme  may  be
approved in the following terms:
“(i) the CEPMIZ prepared by the State  of  Karnataka  may  be  approved  for
implementation through the KMERC.  The  KMERC  may  be  granted  liberty  to
approach this Hon’ble Court seeking addition/ modification  of  any  of  the
Schemes/ Projects envisaged in the CEPMIZ;

(ii)        Monitoring Committee may be  permitted  to  transfer  Rs.  7,000
Crores upto 31.03.2017  out  of  the  funds  lying  with  it  including  the
interest received by it;

(iii) “The Implementation and Monitoring and Supervision Framework  for  the
CEPMIZ” (Annexure A-3 at Page 101 of CEC Report  dated  29.04.2016)  may  be
made binding on the KMERC and the State Government;

(iv)        the accounts of the KMERC will be annually audited by the CAG;

(v)         a ceiling of 5% of  the  annual  expenditure  on  works  on  the
administrative expenses of KMERC may be prescribed;

(vi)        the commitment made by the State  Government  that  25%  of  the
annual premium amount receivable from all the auctioned leases (new  leases/
Dalmia lease/ Category-A/ Category-B leases) may be recorded in the order;

(vii) it may be clarified  that  the  ‘Guidelines  for  Preparation  of  R&R
Plans’ as approved by this Hon’ble Court are equally applicable to  all  the
new leases granted through auction/ under Section  10A(2)(a)  and  10A(2)(c)
of the MMDR Act;

(viii)      Hon’ble Court may consider clarifying that any  amount  required
for construction of railway sidings and/  or  alternate  road  in  Districts
Chitradurga will be incurred by the KMERC only on the capital cost  recovery
basis;

(ix)        regular quarterly progress report regarding  the  implementation
of the CEPMIZ will be filed before  this  Hon’ble  Court  by  the  Chairman,
KMERC;

(x)         the closed pipe downhill conveyer systems will be  installed  at
their cost by:

each one of the Category-A/Category-B leases with MPAP of 1  MMT  and  above
and balance lease period of 8  years  and  above  (six  leases  in  District
Bellary and one in District Chitradurga identified);

each one of the auctioned Category-C leases and Dalmia Lease (ML  No.  2010)
with MPAP of 0.75 MMT and above (ten leases provisionally identified);

all nine new leases proposed to be auctioned, Category-A/ Category-B  leases
that may be auctioned after expiry of their lease periods  and  leases  that
may be granted under Section 10A(2)(c)  and  10A  (2)(a)  of  the  MMDR  Act
(presently 10 leases identified); and

JSW Steel Ltd., the largest buyer of iron ore (buyer of  about  70%  of  the
iron ore produced in these Districts) between Nandllhalli to  its  plant  at
Turanagallu  and  linked  conveyer  system  with  a  capacity   for   annual
transportation of at least 15 MMT or iron ore.

The respective lessees/  successful  bidders  of  auctioned  lease  will  be
required to finalise the alignment within a maximum period of three months.

The area for the Right of Way (ROW) and/ or the approvals under  the  Forest
(Conservation) Act, will be acquired/ obtained by the  State  Government  at
the cost of the respective lessees/ Steel Plant. Such  acquisition  of  ROW/
approvals under the Forest (Conservation) Act will not be treated as  mining
or related activities but for the  purpose  of  the  implementation  of  the
CEPMIZ. The State Government and the  MoEFCC  will  expedite  the  necessary
clearances/ approvals.

The lessees/ Steel Plant will be required to  install  the  conveyer  system
within a maximum period of 18 months after the area under the  ROW  is  made
available failing which the mining  operations  in  the  concerned  lease(s)
will be suspended and  permitted  to  recommence  only  after  the  conveyer
system is installed.

(xi)        the identified lessees dealt with above will  also  be  required
to individually/ collectively construct or up-grade railway sidings so  that
the bulk of the mineral  produced  in  such  mining  leases  is  transported
through closed pipe conveyer systems/ railways and not  by  road.  Wherever,
due to technical reasons/ practical difficulties the individual lessees  are
not in  a  position  to  undertake  construction/  up-gradation  of  railway
sidings, KMERC may undertake such  construction  on  capital  cost  recovery
basis;

(xii) total  production  of  30  MMT  from  operating  Category-A/Category-B
leases and those granted under Section 10A(2)(a) and 10A(2)(c) of  the  MMDR
Act will be permissible  i.e.,  the  present  cap  will  not  apply  to  the
auctioned leases.

      Under the  directions  of  this  Hon’ble  Court  NMDC  Ltd.  has  been
permitted to produce 12 MMT annually from its two mining  leases.  The  MPAP
as per the approved R&R Plans for its ML No. 1111 is 6.07  MMT  and  for  ML
No. 2396  is  3.38  MMT  i.e.  presently  permitted  production,  under  the
directions of this Hon’ble Court, is 2.55 MMT more than the  total  of  MPAP
permissible in the approved  R&R  Plans.  In  addition,  the  MML  has  been
permitted under the directions of this Hon’ble Court to  produce  3  MMT  or
iron ore beyond the MPAP as per the approved R & R Plans of its  two  mining
leases. As and when the sum total of production from the operating Category-
A/ Category-B leases and Section 10A(2)(a) and 10A(2)(c)  leases  is  likely
to exceed 30MMT the production of additional 2.55  MMT  from  two  Mines  of
NMDC Ltd.  and  additional  3  MMT  from  the  two  Mines  of  MML  will  be
permissible to be reduced on pro-rata basis and to such an extent  that  the
total production from all the Mining Leases does not exceed the cap;


(xiii)      additional production of 10MMT  will  be  permissible  from  the
auctioned Category-C and auctioned Dalmia mining leases and subject  to  the
compliance of the prescriptions of the R & R Plans, lease  wise  permissible
MPAP and condition regarding  installation  of  conveyer  belt  systems  and
railway sidings dealt with earlier.

(xiv) this Hon’ble Court may consider any further enhancement of  production
only after the proposed construction of conveyer belt systems  for  downhill
transportation,  conveyer  belt  system  by   JSW   Steel   Ltd.   and   the
construction/  up-gradation  of  railway  sidings  are  completed  and   the
objective of ensuring transportation of most of  the  mineral  by  railways/
conveyer system is achieved i.e. a situation is reached on the ground  where
even if any further enhancement of  production  is  permitted,  the  present
level of transportation of mineral by road would not exceed.”

19.   The various suggestions made by the CEC and the learned Amicus  Curiae
and the conditions subject to which the approval  of  the  Scheme  has  been
sought can be better understood by taking into  account  the  objections  to
the CEPMIZ as raised by the FIMI-Southern Zone  in  its  written  objections
filed and also the report of the State of Karnataka insofar  as  the  Scheme
presented to the Court is concerned.

20.   Briefly and  broadly,  the  objections  of  the  FIMI-Southern  Region
relate to the very broad, sketchy and vague nature of the Scheme  formulated
and presented to the  Court,  which,  according  to  the  said  body,  is  a
superficial exercise prepared after a long period of slumber.  According  to
the FIMI-Southern Region, the preparation of the  Scheme  should  have  been
started in the right earnest way back in the year 2012 after  the  Court  in
its Order dated 28.9.2012 had expressed that, ”the formation of the  Special
Purpose Vehicle and the drawing up of the Comprehensive  Environmental  Plan
for Mining Impact Zone is perhaps the most essential part in the process  of
reclamation and rehabilitation of the area devastated  by  illegal  mining”.
The FIMI-Southern Region also contends that some of  the  measures  included
in the CEPMIZ travel beyond the contours of this Court’s order  constituting
the SPV and the purpose behind it. The outlay of  funds,  it  is  contended,
goes beyond the scope of the earlier orders  of  this  Court  which  clearly
contemplate that no part of the special fund would stand transferred to  the
Consolidated Fund of India  but  would  be  used  exclusively  for  purposes
connected with the SPV. Several socio-economic  projects  like  tourism  and
infrastructural measures; laying of railway lines; setting up of  industrial
and medical infrastructure involve deployment  of  SPV  funds  for  purposes
which are to be executed  in  the  course  of  normal/ordinary  governmental
functions. Expenses in connection with such activities are  required  to  be
met out of the Consolidated Fund and not from the special  fund.  The  FIMI-
Southern Region has also disputed the extent of availability of  funds  that
the Monitoring Committee has indicated in the CEPMIZ prepared by  the  State
Government in consultation with the  CEC.  According  to  the  FIMI-Southern
Region, the total funds  available  with  the  Monitoring  Committee  as  on
31.03.2016 is Rs. 8,124 Crores and not Rs.  7,000  Crores,  as  claimed.  As
there is a surplus of about Rs. 1,800 Crores (as  on  31.03.2016)  over  and
above what is  shown  in  the  CEPMIZ,  the  core  projects  of  the  scheme
envisaged, namely, construction of conveyor belt system  and  railway  lines
and railway sidings can be met from the available  funds  instead  of  again
burdening the lessees to the tune of Rs. 2,900 Crores. It  further  contends
that from final report of the CEC dated 3.02.2012,  investment  in  facility
of transportation of iron ore such as conveyor belt, railway sidings was  to
be met from SPV funds. In its objections, FIMI-Southern Region  has  further
contended that the Tumkur, Chitradurga, Davanagere railway line is a  normal
venture undertaken by the Indian Railways and it is not understood  how  the
same can be beneficial to  the  restoration  of  environment  in  the  three
districts devastated by large scale illegal mining. Though,  a  sum  of  Rs.
500 Crores to be spent on railway sidings was initially to be borne by  SPV,
in the joint report  of  the  CEC  and  the  learned  Amicus  Curiae  it  is
mentioned that DPR for construction  of  the  railway  sidings  will  be  on
capital cost recovery basis. Similarly, the investment of Rs. 750 Crores  in
industrial infrastructure,  namely,  in  projects  undertaken  by  Karnataka
Industrial Area Development Board and such other bodies is beyond the  scope
of  the  ameliorative  and  mitigative  measures  for  which  incurring   of
expenditure and investment from  the  special  fund  was  permitted  by  the
Court. Projects undertaken by the KIADB and other  such  bodies  pertain  to
the normal activities of such State bodies.  Besides  objecting  to  further
continuance of any levy  on  the  sale  proceeds  of  iron  ore  (either  by
existing lessees or future lessees) after the establishment of the  District
Mineral Foundation, FIMI-Southern Region also contends that the  funds  that
would be available with the District Mineral  Foundation  for  the  next  10
years have not been taken into account in preparing the financial  estimates
mentioned in the CEPMIZ.

21.   The State of Karnataka being virtually the author of  the  CEPMIZ  had
submitted to the Court that the same should have the  Government’s  approval
subject  to  certain  conditions.   Of  particular  significance   are   the
suggestions of the State of Karnataka for  raising  the  cap  on  production
from 30 MMT to  40  MMT  and,  thereafter,  to  50  MMT  with  a  margin  of
additional 20% and the insistence on payment for the  conveyor  belt  system
and railway sidings by the  lessees  themselves.  There  are  certain  other
incidental features/ aspects covered by the  suggestions  of  the  State  of
Karnataka which pertain  to  the  rate  of  contribution  out  of  the  sale
proceeds so far as the NMDC mines are concerned as well as  the  mines  that
would eventually be leased out under Section 10A(2)(b) and (c) of  the  MMDR
Act.

22.   We have considered the matter in  depth.  Beyond  recording  the  view
that the CEPMIZ, at this  stage,  is  really  in  the  nature  of  a  vision
document with all concrete measures, steps and proposals left to  be  worked
out at a later stage i.e. the stage of  preparation of the detailed  project
reports, we would not like to comment on the merits of the Scheme  save  and
except to say that so far as  the  socio-economic  measures  are  concerned,
very  broadly  and  roughly  speaking,  the  different  heads  under   which
restoration and reclamation work is proposed to be done,  subject  to  final
details being worked out later, appears to  be  sufficiently  comprehensive.
Insofar as the integrated mining and railway infrastructure, industrial  and
medical infrastructure is concerned, we are of the view that except for  the
integrated mining infrastructure and part of the railway  infrastructure  so
far as railway sidings and railway sub-lines mentioned in  the  Chart  shown
hereinabove, the rest of the  infrastructural  measures  can  wait  for  the
present. Having considered the various dimensions of the matter, we  are  of
the view that instead of approving the CEPMIZ as a whole  on  the  basis  of
the inputs available at this stage, we should hold back  our  views  in  the
matter until more comprehensive details are available in respect of each  of
the broad  heads  under  which  ameliorative  and  mitigative  measures  are
proposed to be undertaken. However, at the same time,  we  must  convey  our
approval to the integrated mining and part  of  the  railway  infrastructure
that is proposed, namely, construction of the conveyor belt system;  railway
sidings and railway sub-lines. It is  only  once  a  decision  is  taken  on
raising the aforesaid infrastructure and noticeable headway  in  the  matter
of execution thereof is reached, that the other ameliorative and  mitigative
socio-economic measures can have any relevance. This is because  it  is  the
limited infrastructure that have been indicated above  i.e.  conveyor  belt,
railway sidings and  railway  sub-lines  which  would  constitute  the  most
significant steps  towards  controlling  the  environmental  pollution  that
persists on account of open movement of iron ore by road.  It is only  after
controlled and regulated movement of iron ore is  achieved  that  the  other
socio-economic measures should be undertaken so  as  to  produce  meaningful
results. So far as the industrial infrastructure is concerned, all  measures
already being undertaken by the KIADB in the  Bellery,  Chitradurga,  Tumkur
areas may continue. It will not be necessary to  involve  the  SPV  in  such
activities at this stage. Transfer of funds from the SPV for  such  projects
already undertaken by the KIADB and other bodies can  always  be  considered
at a later stage. The medical infrastructure on which an outlay of  Rs.  950
Crores is contemplated need not engage the attention of this Court  for  the
present. In other words, the entire  CEPMIZ Scheme need not be  approved  in
one go and such approval may be  considered  and  accorded  in  phases.  The
initial activity identified, namely, construction of conveyor  belt  system;
railway sidings and railway sub-lines needs to be prioritized.

23.   Insofar as the transfer of funds  is  concerned,  even  without  going
into the issue of the exact quantum of funds available with  the  Monitoring
Committee for transfer to the SPV, it would  be  suffice  to  say  that  the
funds available with the Monitoring  Committee  as  on  date  is  more  than
adequate to meet the cost  projected  against  the  works  which  have  been
identified by the Court  to  be  the  priority  works  for  the  repair  and
restoration of the environment. Once further  details  with  regard  to  the
aforesaid three items of work are available indicating what exactly that  is
proposed to be done; the period of time that is likely to be  taken  if  the
work is to be carried out independently of the other  measures  included  in
the CEPMIZ, the issue with regard to the source of  funds,  namely,  whether
the sum should be exclusively from the funds to be transferred  to  the  SPV
or such cost is to be borne by the lessees can be decided by the Court.

24.   Accordingly, for the present, we close the  matter  by  reserving  our
views with regard to phasing out of  the  scheme  in  different  parts;  the
precise point of time at which the works in each  of  such  phases  can  and
should be made operative; the sources of funds to be deployed  for  each  of
such phases and such other connected issues. All that we deem  fit  for  the
present is to call upon State of Karnataka and the CEC to submit a  detailed
proposal with regard to implementation of  the  Scheme  of  construction  of
conveyor belt system in respect of existing leases and the  details  of  the
project relating to the construction of railway  sidings  and  railway  sub-
lines. No sooner the  said  proposal/report  is  filed  before  this  Court,
further orders will follow.

                                                     ....................,J.
                                                              (RANJAN GOGOI)


                                                     ....................,J.
                                                          (PRAFULLA C. PANT)


                                                     ....................,J.
                                                           (A.M. KHANWILKAR)



NEW DELHI
MARCH 21, 2017

-----------------------
[1]

       [2013 (8) SCC 154]

When the lands are acquired at the same time and for the same purpose that is for resettlement of Dal dwellers, the lands situated in three different villages namely, Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora, and since the land is similar land, it would be unfair to discriminate between the land owners and other references and the appellants who are the land owners in Reference No.15 and pay less that is Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanal to the appellants and pay more to other land owners that is Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal. Impugned judgments of the High Court in CIA No. 211/2009 and Cross Appeal No. 64/2011 are to be set aside by enhancing the compensation to Rs.4,00,000 per Kanal. As a sequel to this, the order passed in review is also to be set aside.

                                                                  REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  4295-4297 OF 2017
                (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.3726-3728 of 2016)

ALI  MOHAMMAD BEIGH AND ORS.                              …Appellants

                                   Versus
STATE                OF                J                 &                 K
...Respondent

                               J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.


      Leave granted.

2.    These appeals arise  out  of  the  common  judgment  and  order  dated
24.09.2013 and 15.05.2015 passed by the High Court of Jammu and  Kashmir  at
Srinagar dismissing CIA No.211 of 2009 along  with  Cross  Appeal  No.64  of
2011 and Review Petition Civil   No. 07 of 2013 affirming  the  compensation
of Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanal  awarded  to  the  appellants  by  the  Reference
Court.

3.    Brief facts which led to filing  of  these  appeals  are  as  follows:
Notification dated  16.06.1997  was  issued  by  the  Collector,  Lakes  and
Waterways Development  Authority  (LAWDA),  Srinagar  vide             No.C-
LDA/452-64, under Section 4(1) of the Jammu  and  Kashmir  Land  Acquisition
Act for the acquisition of land measuring 505 Kanal 06  Marlas  situated  at
Chandapora,  Tehsil  and  District  Srinagar,  for  the   construction   and
development of housing colony for the resettlement  of  dislocated  families
of the Dal dwellers.  On  01.06.1999,  a  Final  Award  was  passed  by  the
Collector, LAWDA, Srinagar under the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition  Act
vide No. G-LDA 293-98 in respect of  land  measuring  505  Kanal  06  Marlas
situated at Chandapora, Tehsil and District Srinagar. The  Land  Acquisition
Officer assessed the compensation amount payable  to  the  applicants/estate
holders at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per Kanal Abi-Bagh,  Rs.1,40,000/-  per
Kanal for Abi-Awal and  Rs.1,30,000/-   for  Gair-Mumkin.    On  01.06.1999,
Collector passed the Final Award fixing compensation rates:  (i)  Abi-Bagh  ?
irrigated  Orchard  land  (Rs.1.50  lacs  per   Kanal);   (ii)   Abi-Awal   ?
agricultural land (Rs.1.40 lacs per Kanal); and (iii) Gair-Mumkin  ?   Barren
land (Rs.1.30 lacs per Kanal).

4.    Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the  Collector,  LAWDA,
Srinagar, the appellants sought reference to  the  District  Judge/Reference
Court to establish their claims for enhanced  compensation.   The  Reference
Court vide judgment dated 31.10.2008 held that the appellants  are  entitled
to  get  compensation  of  Rs.2,50,000/-  per   Kanal   and   also   awarded
compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per Kanal on account of fencing.

5.    Feeling aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Reference  Court,
State filed appeal CIA No.211 of 2009.  Claimants have  filed  Cross  Appeal
bearing No.64 of 2011, seeking enhancement of compensation to  Rs.4,00,000/-
per Kanal.  The High Court dismissed the State’s appeal.  The  Cross  Appeal
filed by the appellants was also dismissed by the High  Court  holding  that
the appellants have not led any evidence which could  have  been  the  basis
for enhancing compensation to Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal as has  been  done  in
other cases. The review petition filed by the appellants  also  came  to  be
dismissed.  Being aggrieved by the dismissal of their Cross Appeal  and  the
review, the appellants have filed these appeals.

6.    Learned counsel for the appellants  submitted  that  in  the  case  of
Reference No.5 of 2002 titled Shamim  Ahmed  Dar  and  Ors.  vs.  Collector,
LAWDA, the Reference Court granted compensation at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/-
 per Kanal for the acquired land situated in  the  same  village  Chandapora
where the acquired land of the appellants was also  situated  and  while  so
the Reference Court erred in not granting the  same  rate  of  compensation,
that is at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal to the  appellants.   Learned
counsel  further  contended  that  Reference  Court   was   not   right   in
discriminating the appellants by granting compensation to them only  at  the
rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanal while in the case of  adjacent  land  owners
compensation has been fixed at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal.

7.    Per contra, learned counsel for the  respondent–State  submitted  that
the appellants have failed to adduce evidence to  justify  their  claim  qua
compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- granted to the  land  owners.   On
the contrary, it was submitted that the land owners in Reference No.5  whose
compensation has been enhanced to Rs.4,00,000/- have proved  their  case  by
adducing evidence in support of the  said  enhanced  compensation.   It  was
urged that the case of the  appellants  can  in  no  way  be  compared  with
Reference No.5 and other cases inasmuch  as  in  the  said  reference,  land
owners have clearly proved the rate at Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal  as  per  the
market rate and the High Court rightly dismissed the  Cross  Appeal  of  the
appellants and the impugned judgment warrants no interference.

8.    We have carefully considered the rival contentions  and  also  perused
the impugned judgment and the materials on record.

9.    Admittedly, the land measuring 65 Kanal  ½  Marla  of  the  appellants
herein comprising of Khasra Nos. 115, 363/118, 179, 155, 197, 155, 90,  157,
100, 372/112, 102, 172,  173,  14  4  Min,  198,  148  and  194  covered  by
Reference No.15/2002 was acquired for the purpose  of  resettlement  of  Dal
dwellers  in the year 1997-1999.  In or  about  the  same  time,  the  lands
adjacent to the land of the appellants  in  Chandapora,  Bhagichandpora  and
Pazwalpora were also acquired for the same purpose of  resettlement  of  Dal
dwellers by various  references.    Comparative  table  of  the  details  of
acquisition of lands of the  appellants  and  the  other  land  acquired  in
Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora is as under:

|Village    |S.4(1)     |S.6         |Final Award |Reference Court  |
|           |Notificatio|Declaration |            |Award            |
|           |n          |            |            |                 |
|Chandapora |10.01.1997 |02.06.1997  |01.06.1999  |Reference        |
|           |           |            |            |No.15/2002       |
|           |           |            |            |DOA 31.10.2008   |
|           |           |            |            |Reference        |
|           |           |            |            |No.5/2002        |
|           |           |            |            |DOA 03.11.2008   |
|Bhagi-Chand|24.06.1997 |05.07.1997  |01.06.1999  |Reference        |
|apora      |           |            |            |1/2003           |
|           |           |            |            |6/2002           |
|           |           |            |            |DOA 03.11.2009   |
|Pazwalpora |16.06.1997 |05.07.1997  |14.07.1999  |Reference        |
|           |           |            |            |No.7/2002        |
|           |           |            |            |DOA 03.11.2009   |


10.   Learned counsel for the appellants has  drawn  our  attention  towards
the fact that the villages of  Chandapora,  Bhagichandapora  and  Pazwalpora
are situated adjacent to each other and share a common border/boundary  with
each other. The inter se  distance  between  these  villages  is  not  much,
however, centre to centre distance between these villages is less than  half
a kilometre.  The learned counsel has also drawn our attention to  the  Site
Plan showing inter se location of  these  villages  and  the  land  acquired
there from by the Collector, LAWDA, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir in the  year
1999, for the public purpose of re-settlement of  Dal  dwellers,  which  was
obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [RTI  Act].   In  response
to  the  information  sought  by  the  appellants   under   the   RTI   Act,
communication dated  08.12.2015  was  sent  stating  that  the  villages  of
Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora  are  situated  adjacent  to  each
other and shared a common border/boundary with each other.   The  Site  Plan
showing the location of  the  villages  of  Chandapora,  Bhagichandpora  and
Pazwalporas also fortifies the information furnished that  the  above  three
villages  are  situated  adjacent  to  each  other  and   share   a   common
border/boundary with each other.

11.   In cases of acquisition of land in Bhagichandpora  and  Pazwalpora  in
Reference  Nos.1/2003,  6/2002  and  7/2002,  the  Reference  Court,   after
referring to the evidence adduced by the claimants thereon  and  also  after
referring to assessment of market rate by  Tehsildar  at  Rs.4,00,000/-  per
Kanal, held that the land  owners  are  entitled  to  compensation  for  the
acquired  land  at  the  rate  of  Rs.4,00,000/-  per  Kanal  with  solatium
(Jabirana) at the rate of 15% apart from interest @  6%  per  annum  on  the
enhanced compensation in excess to the sum awarded by the Collector, LAWDA.

12.   As noted earlier, village Chandapora is situated adjacent to  villages
Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora;  while  so,  there  was  no  reason  why  the
Reference Court differentiated the land of  the  appellants-land  owners  of
the acquired land  in  Chandapora  land  Reference  No.15/2002  by  awarding
lesser compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-.  On a perusal of the judgment  of  the
Reference Court in Reference No.15 of 2002, it is seen  that  the  witnesses
were examined by the appellants to substantiate their case that  the  market
rate of  the  land  in  village  Chandapora  in  the  year  1998  was  about
Rs.8,00,000/- per Kanal.  Though  the  Tehsildar  of  the  area  recommended
Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanal, the witnesses have  stated  that  the  compensation
fixed by Tehsildar was not reliable and  not based  on  any  material.   The
appellants have also produced a sale deed by one Mr.  Bansilal  under  which
he sold a small strip of land measuring 1360 sq. feet  in  the  vicinity  of
the acquired land for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. But  the  Reference  Court
discarded the evidence of witness Bansilal on  the  ground  that  under  the
sale deed only a small area of land was sold and the  sale  deed  cannot  be
taken to be a representative character of the entire  land.   In  our  view,
the Reference Court was not right in discarding the  said  sale  deed  which
was supported by oral evidence  of  the  witnesses,  to  substantiate  their
claim that the market rate assessed by the Tehsildar  at  Rs.2,50,000/-  was
not a fair compensation.

13.   When the lands are more or less situated nearby and when the  acquired
lands are identical  and  similar  and  the  acquisition  is  for  the  same
purpose, it would not be proper to  discriminate  between  the  land  owners
unless there are strong reasons.  In Union of India vs. Bal Ram and  Another
(2010) 5 SCC 747, this Court held that if  the  purpose  of  acquisition  is
same and when the lands are identical and similar though lying in  different
villages, there is no justification to make any discrimination  between  the
land owners to pay more to some of the land owners and less compensation  to
others.  The same was the view taken in Union  of  India  vs.  Harinder  Pal
Singh and Others. (2005) 12 SCC 564, where this Court held as under:-
“15. We have carefully considered the submissions  made  on  behalf  of  the
respective parties and  we  see  no  justification  to  interfere  with  the
decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High  Court  which,
in our view, took a pragmatic approach in fixing the  market  value  of  the
lands forming  the  subject-matter  of  the  acquisition  proceedings  at  a
uniform rate. From the sketch plan of the area in question,  it  appears  to
us that  while  the  lands  in  question  are  situated  in  five  different
villages, they can be consolidated into  one  single  unit  with  little  to
choose between one stretch of land and another. The  entire  area  is  in  a
stage of development  and  the  different  villages  are  capable  of  being
developed in the same manner as the lands comprised in Kala Ghanu Pur  where
the market value of the acquired lands was fixed at a  uniform  rate  of  Rs
40,000 per acre. The Division Bench of the Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court
discarded the belting  method  of  valuation  having  regard  to  the  local
circumstances and features and  no  cogent  ground  has  been  made  out  to
interfere with the same.

16. In our view, in the absence of any contemporaneous document, the  market
value of the acquired lands of Village Kala Ghanu Pur  which  were  acquired
at the same time as the lands in  the  other  five  villages  was  correctly
taken to be a comparative unit for determination of the market value of  the
lands comprising the lands forming the  subject-matter  of  the  acquisition
proceedings under consideration…….”

14.   When the lands are acquired at the same time and for the same  purpose
that is for resettlement of  Dal  dwellers,  the  lands  situated  in  three
different villages namely, Chandapora, Bhagichandpora  and  Pazwalpora,  and
since the land is similar land, it would be unfair to  discriminate  between
the land owners and other references and the appellants  who  are  the  land
owners in Reference No.15 and pay less that is Rs.2,50,000/-  per  Kanal  to
the appellants and pay more to other land owners that is  Rs.4,00,000/-  per
Kanal.  Impugned judgments of the High Court in CIA No. 211/2009  and  Cross
Appeal No. 64/2011 are to be set aside  by  enhancing  the  compensation  to
Rs.4,00,000 per Kanal.  As a sequel to this, the order passed in  review  is
also to be set aside.

15.   In the result, the impugned judgments are set aside and these  appeals
are allowed.  It is held that the appellants are  at  par  with  other  land
owners whose lands were acquired in Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora  in  other
references, and hence they are also entitled  to  enhanced  compensation  of
Rs.4,00,000/-  per  Kanal  with  15%  solatium  (Jabirana)  and  all   other
statutory benefits.  No costs.



                                                             …….…………...………J.
                                                   [KURIAN JOSEPH]


                                                               …………….……………J.
                                                   [R. BANUMATHI]
      New Delhi;
      March 21, 2017

As held by this Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and another[2], and going a step further, the Court has a duty to issue appropriate directions for remedying or rectifying the things done in violation of the orders. In that regard, the Court may even take restitutive measures at any stage of the proceedings. In the background as above of the case, the Division Bench should not have interfered with the order dated 26.06.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge. However, taking note of the fact, an amount of Rs.2,23,00,000/- has been kept in fixed deposit towards lien for issuance of bank guarantee, we make it clear that the respondents shall not operate the bank accounts of the company after 03.04.2017 without securing an amount of Rs.8,32,60,331/- We also make it clear that without leave of the High Court, the fixed deposit of Rs.2,23,00,000/- with the Axis Bank shall not be withdrawn. However, it would be open to the respondents to apply for appropriate clarification or modification of the order dated 26.06.2015, after making the deposit as above and it will be open to the learned Single Judge to pass the appropriate orders on merits of the application. We make it clear that any observations made by us are only for the purpose of this order and shall not have any bearing on the consideration by the learned Single Judge in the contempt proceedings.

                                                                  REPORTABLE

                           SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  4298-4299  OF 2017
             (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.25733-25734/2015)


BARANAGORE JUTE FACTORY PLC.
MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS) ETC.                     ...  APPELLANT (S)


                                   VERSUS



BARANAGORE JUTE FACTORY PLC. ETC.           ... RESPONDENT (S)

                                    WITH

                    CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  4302-4305 OF 2017
             (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.28212-28215/2015)

                                     AND

                    CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  4306-4308  OF 2017
             (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.28198-28200/2015)

                           J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.

The appellants are the  petitioners/applicants  before  the  learned  Single
Judge in an application filed by them for taking appropriate action  against
the respondents herein for violating the order dated  23.02.2011.  According
to the appellants, the entire money paid by the National  Highway  Authority
of India (‘NHAI’ for short) on  account  of  acquisition  of  the  company’s
land, should have been deposited with the High Court, in the true spirit  of
the order dated 23.02.2011. To the extent relevant, for the purpose  of  the
present case, it may be noted that of the total amount due to  the  company,
the NHAI issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.94.16 crores  approximately  in
favour of the Registrar of the High  Court  after  deducting  an  amount  of
Rs.10,55,60,331/- by way of  tax  deducted  at  source  (‘TDS’  for  short).
Thereafter, the company filed its income-tax return for the assessment  year
2013-2014 and claimed and received refund of the entire  amount  covered  by
the TDS, after deducting the tax. According to the respondents,  the  amount
was utilised for various purposes in connection  with  the  affairs  of  the
company. It is the stand of the respondents that the  direction  to  deposit
the amount with the High  Court  was  given  to  the  NHAI,  and  in  having
claimed, received and utilised  the  refund  received  from  the  Income-Tax
Department, there is no violation of the order dated 23.02.2011.
Learned Single  Judge  was  prima  facie  of  the  opinion  that  there  was
deliberate violation of the order dated 23.02.2011,  and  therefore,  issued
Rule  to  the  respondents,  returnable  in  six  weeks,  vide  order  dated
26.06.2015. There was also  a  direction  that  the  respondents  shall  not
operate the bank  accounts  of  the  company  without  securing  the  afore-
mentioned amount of Rs.10,55,60,331/-.
Aggrieved, the respondents took up the matter in appeal before the  Division
Bench leading to the impugned order.
The Division Bench, in the impugned order, took the view  that  the  learned
Single Judge should not have passed an  order  affecting  the  operation  of
bank accounts, and therefore, to that  extent,  the  order  of  the  learned
Single Judge was vacated. And thus  aggrieved,  the  appellants  are  before
this Court.
It may specifically be noted that the  Division  Bench  has  not  interfered
with the Rule issued to the respondents in the proceedings  initiated  under
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)  for
the alleged violation of the order  dated  23.02.2011.  The  Division  Bench
only vacated the order regarding operation  of  the  bank  accounts  of  the
company without securing the amount of rupees ten crores and odd.  To  quote
from the impugned order:
“The order under appeal cannot, in our view,  be  sustained  to  the  extent
that the appellants have been restrained from operating their bank  accounts
without setting apart ten crores and odd. The two appeals and the  connected
stay applications are disposed of.”
                                                         (Emphasis supplied)

Still further, the Division Bench also clarified that:
“Having regard to the urgency and considering the  fact  that  the  contempt
proceedings and the company applications  are  pending  before  the  learned
Single Bench, we have not issued any direction for affidavits.”

Thus, the limited question before us  is  whether  the  Division  Bench  was
justified in interfering with the order passed by the learned  Single  Judge
for securing the amount received by the respondents by way  of  refund  from
the Income-Tax Department.
In order to appreciate the above question, it is necessary to refer  to  the
background under which the relevant orders have been passed by  the  learned
Single Judge.
The most relevant amongst the orders is the one dated 23.02.2011  passed  by
the learned Single Judge, which is one alleged to have been violated by  the
respondents. The text of the order reads as follows:
“The Court: Mr. S.N.  Mitra,  learned  senior  Advocate  appearing  for  the
Baranagore Jute Factory PLC Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), the applicant in CA 906  of
2010 submitted that  a  portion  of  the  vacant  land  of  the  company  in
liquidation has been acquired by the National  Highway  Authority  of  India
and on account of compensation huge amounts are likely to  be  paid  to  the
company in  liquidation.  He  submitted  that  considering  the  conflicting
claims made by various persons who are  either  in  management  or  who  are
seeking to take over management in liquidation the money likely to come  may
not be safe. Therefore, he submitted that the  money  should  be  adequately
protected.
      Mr. Sen, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Chaitan  Chowdhury  and
Ridh Karan Rakeeha submitted that the submission made by Mr. S.N.  Mitra  is
a reasonable one.
      Mr.  Anindya  Kumar  Mitra,  learned  Senior  Advocate  appearing  for
Damodar Prasad Bhattar, Sunil Toshniwal, S.Jha & Ors, submitted  that  there
is no objection to the money being  protected  but  he  submitted  that  his
clients are presently running the management of the company  in  liquidation
and therefore his clients should be permitted to  receive  the  compensation
and to keep the same in fixed deposit subject to further order of Court.
      Mr. Subhranshu Ganguly, learned Advocate representing Yashdeep  Trexim
Pvt. Ltd. supported the submission of Mr. S.N. Mitra.
      Ms. Manju  Agarwal,  learned  Advocate,  appearing  for  some  of  the
creditors of the company in liquidation also  supported  the  contention  of
Mr. S.N. Mitra.
       Mr.  D.K.  Singh,  learned  Advocate  appearing  for   the   Official
Liquidator submitted that pursuant to earlier  orders  passed  by  the  Apex
Court it is, only proper  that  the  money  should  be  deposited  with  the
Registrar, Original Side.
      Mr. Niloy Sengupta,  learned  Advocate  appearing  for  Krishna  Kumar
Kapadia, who, according to him, holds controlling block  of  shares  in  the
company submitted that the submission of Mr. S.N. Mitra should be accepted.
      Considering the submissions made by the  learned  Advocates  appearing
for the parties I am of the opinion that the submission made  on  behalf  of
the Official Liquidator is also in conformity with the  submission  made  by
Mr. S.N. Mitra which has largest support of  the  parties  appearing  before
me.
      In that view of the matter, National Highway  Authority  of  India  is
restrained from making  any  payment  on  account  of  compensation  to  the
company in liquidation except by way of  an  account  payee  cheque  to  the
Registrar, Original Side. The Registrar, Original Side upon receipt of  such
payment shall keep the same  in  a  short  term  fixed  deposit  subject  to
further order of Court with the SBI Main Branch. Upon receipt of the  money,
he shall keep the parties informed about it.
      It is clarified that I have referred to the company as  a  company  in
liquidation because there is already a  winding  up  order  passed  by  this
Court. Fuller effect of that order is yet to be examined.
xxxx                         xxxx                           xxxx”
                                                         (Emphasis supplied)



After the deposit of the amount of around  Rs.95  crores,  as  paid  by  the
NHAI, in terms of the said order, several attempts have  been  made  by  the
respondents herein for  withdrawal  of  the  said  amounts  purportedly  for
meeting some of the liabilities of the company. We shall refer to  only  one
order passed by this Court on 12.03.2015 wherein this Court,  at  paragraph-
4, has taken note of the order passed by the  Division  Bench  of  the  High
Court dated 14.08.2014. To the extent relevant, paragraphs-4, 6,  and  7  of
the order dated 12.03.2015 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal  Nos.  2814-
2815 of 2015, read as follows:

“4.   The Division bench while affirming the order  passed  by  the  Company
Judge observed as under:-

“Considering the amount of deposit which the appellants  want  to  withdraw,
and the company’s indebtness to its various creditors  and  the  quantum  of
its liability, coupled with the facts that even the workers  have  not  been
paid their dues, we do not feel it safe  to  allow  a  particular  group  of
shareholders, who are described as interloper by the creditors, to  withdraw
the money deposited with the Registrar, Original Side of this Court  without
deciding  the  said  issue  finally  particularly  when  we  find  that  the
appellant/applicant themselves have filed an application being  C.A.  No.957
of 2010 praying for permanent stay of the  company  petition  No.2  of  1987
which is yet to be decided finally. In the  aforesaid  context,  we  do  not
find any illegality in the impugned order  passed  by  the  learned  Company
Court proposing to dispose of all the pending applications  simultaneously.”


xxxx                         xxxx                           xxxx

6.    It has been brought to  our  notice  that  the  impugned  order  dated
14.8.2014 was earlier challenged in SLP (C)  No.29330  of  2014  (@  SLP  CC
No.16278/2014). The said Special Leave Petition was dismissed  as  withdrawn
on 27.10.2014 by passing the following order.

“Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the  petitioner,
seeks permission to withdraw this  petition  with  a  liberty  to  move  the
Company Judge  to  dispose  of  the  pending  matters  as  expeditiously  as
possible. Therefore, in view of the fair  submission  made  by  the  learned
senior counsel, we dismiss this special leave petition as withdrawn  with  a
request  to  the  Company  Judge  to  dispose  of  the  pending  matters  as
expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of  three  months  from
today.”

7.    In the facts and circumstances of the case,  we  are  of  the  opinion
that the Company Judge before  whom  all  applications  are  pending  should
dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible  within  a  period  of  two
months from today.”
                                                         (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, it may be noted that this Court declined to interfere with  the  order
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, which in  turn  refused  the
prayer for withdrawal of the deposit lying with the Court.
Despite  the  above  background,  the  respondents  received  cheque   dated
13.06.2014 by way of Income-Tax refund  to  the  tune  of  Rs.10,21,28,520/-
after  conceding  the  tax  for  Rs.34,31,807/-  from  the  total   TDS   of
Rs.10,55,60,331/- and utilised the same for  various  purposes  without  any
clarification or permission from the company court which  passed  the  order
dated 23.02.2011 regarding the deposit of the entire money paid by the  NHAI
towards compensation for the acquired land. This conduct, according  to  the
learned Single Judge, prima facie, was  in  violation  of  the  order  dated
23.02.2011, and hence, the Rule with  a  further  direction  to  secure  the
entire TDS amount. Thus, the learned Single Judge, after  referring  to  the
order dated 23.02.2011, passed the following order  on  26.06.2015.  To  the
extent relevant, the order reads as follows:
“... Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the National Highway Authority  issued
a cheque of Rs.94.16  crores  approximately  in  favour  of  the  Registrar,
Original Side of this Court. The National Highway Authority had  issued  the
aforesaid cheque after deducting a sum of Rs.10,55,60,331/-  on  account  of
tax deducted at source. Such payment appears to have been  received  by  the
Registrar, Original Side of this Court  on  or  about  November,  2012.  The
fixed deposit was made by the Registrar,  Original  Side  on  9th  November,
2012, that is to say, during the financial  year  2012-13  corresponding  to
assessment year 2013-14. In the return filed on behalf of  the  company  for
the assessment year 2013-14, a claim for refund was made  on  the  basis  of
the aforesaid deposit made by the National Highway Authority on  account  of
the  tax  deducted  at  source  as  would  appear  from  page  101  of   the
application. It appears that the claim for refund was met by the Income  Tax
Authority by issuing a cheque on 13th June, 2014 as would appear  from  page
102 of the application. There is, as such, clear evidence of the  fact  that
the alleged contemnors received the refund in violation of the  order  dated
23rd February, 2011. Assuming that receipt  of  the  cheque  on  account  of
refund of income tax was in the usual course of business, there  can  be  no
gainsaying that the cheque should not have been encashed  without  leave  of
Court. From Annexure-E to the application appearing at page 102, it  appears
that a cheque dated 13th June, 2014 was received on account  of  refund  and
has also been encashed. Such encashment of the cheque on account  of  refund
which has its origin in the amount paid by the  National  Highway  Authority
was in the teeth of the order dated 23rd February, 2011.
I am,  therefore,  prima  facie  of  the  opinion  that  there  has  been  a
deliberate violation of the order passed by this court.
It  appears  from  the  return  appearing  at  page  101  that  a   sum   of
Rs.34,31,807/-  was  payable  on  account  of  tax  by  the  company.  After
deducting the aforesaid  sum  from  the  amount  of  Rs.10,55,60,331/-,  the
balance  sum  of  Rs.10,21,28,520/-  was  claimed  by  way  of  refund.  The
liability on account of income tax is  payable  by  the  present  management
from their own resource and for that any part of  the  money  received  from
the National Highway Authority could not be  used.  Therefore,  the  alleged
contemnors, managing the affairs of the company, in liquidation,  appear  to
have  appropriated  the  aforesaid  sum  of  Rs.10,55,60,331/-   which   was
deposited by way of tax deducted at source with the  Income  Tax  Department
by the National Highway Authority.
For the aforesaid reasons, issue Rule against the alleged contemnor  Nos.  1
to 6. Returnable six weeks hence.
Since the company, in liquidation, through the machination  of  the  alleged
contemnors, has been enriched by the aforesaid sum and in order to  preserve
the aforesaid sum the alleged contemnors are restrained from  operating  the
bank account/accounts of the company without  setting  aside  the  aforesaid
sum of Rs.10,55,60,331/-. …”
                                                         (Emphasis supplied)


The above order was the subject matter  of  challenge  before  the  Division
Bench, leading to the impugned order.
The Division Bench, as we have already referred  to  above,  was  not  happy
with the order regarding  restriction  on  operation  of  the  bank  account
without securing the TDS amount. To the extent relevant,  the  consideration
in the impugned order reads as follows:

“… With the greatest respect we are of  the  view  that  the  learned  Court
should perhaps have given the  appellants  an  opportunity  to  explain  and
should perhaps also have ascertained what was the balance  in  the  accounts
maintained by the company before passing an order which has  in  effect  and
substance restrained the company from operating its accounts.
It is not in dispute that the turnover of the company  is  in  crores.  This
was the submission made on behalf of the respondents as  well.  A    Company
with such turnover cannot possibly carry on its business  without  operating
any bank accounts at all. The livelihood of 4000  workers  employed  by  the
company  is  involved.  We  are  not  concerned  with  whether  the  present
management will continue or not; we are also not concerned with whether  the
management is managing the affairs of the company well  or  mismanaging  the
company. These  are  matters  which  will  be  decided  in  the  appropriate
proceedings at the appropriate stage. It is however reiterated, at the  cost
of  repetition  that  there  was  no  specific  order  against  the  Company
restraining the Company from encashing cheques towards  Income  Tax  refund,
or from utilising the same.
 The order under appeal cannot, in our view,  be  sustained  to  the  extent
that the appellants have been restrained from operating their bank  accounts
without setting apart ten crores and odd. The two appeals and
the connected stay applications are disposed of.”

                                                         (Emphasis supplied)


As we have already clarified, the Division Bench,  in  the  impugned  order,
has not interfered with the Rule issued in  the  contempt  proceedings.  The
interference is only to the extent of direction to  secure  the  TDS  amount
Rs.10,55,60,331/-.
Though Shri Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel  invited  our  attention  to
the judgment of  this  Court  in  Sudhir  Vasudeva,  Chairman  and  Managing
Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and others  v.  M.  George
Ravishekaran and others[1], and contended that the courts  must  not  travel
beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been  flouted,
in the background which we have explained above, we  find  it  difficult  to
appreciate the submission. This Court, in the judgment  referred  to  above,
in paragraph-19, has clarified that the directions  which  are  explicit  in
the judgment or “are plainly self-evident” can be  taken  into  account  for
the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been  any  disobedience
or wilful violation of the same. Prima  facie,  we  are  of  the  view  that
learned Single Judge has taken note only of the plainly  self-evident  facts
while issuing the Rule and order regarding securing the  amounts  which  the
respondents received by way of refund from  the  Income-Tax  Department  and
utilized.
It may be seen that the order dated  23.02.2011  regarding  the  deposit  in
court was passed to secure the entire compensation from the NHAI. The  court
was concerned about the money to be  received  from  the  NHAI  towards  the
compensation and appropriately protecting the same from being  used  by  the
company. Even the respondents herein had “... no objection  to  money  being
protected...”. The court had, in fact, declined  the  request  made  by  the
respondents ... “to receive the compensation and to keep the same  in  fixed
deposit subject to further orders of the  court”.  The  Official  Liquidator
was of the view that ... “the money should be deposited with the  Registrar,
Original Side”.
After considering the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing  for  the
parties, the  learned  Single  Judge,  formed  the  opinion  that  ...  “the
submission made on behalf of the Official Liquidator is also  in  conformity
with the submission made by Mr. S.N. Mitra, who has largest support  of  the
parties before me (the court)”. Hence, the  learned  Single  Judge  made  it
clear that “In that view of the matter, the National Highway  Authority  was
restrained from making  any  payment  on  account  of  compensation  to  the
company in liquidation except by way of  an  account  payee  cheque  to  the
Registrar, Original Side of the High Court”. Therefore, it is  fairly  clear
that the court had in mind the entire  compensation  paid  by  the  NHAI  in
respect of the land acquired by them. Since the NHAI  was  bound  to  deduct
TDS, an amount of Rs.10,55,60,331/- was paid to the  Income-Tax  Department.
There can be no doubt whatsoever that the said amount  formed  part  of  the
compensation. What the court in its order  dated  23.02.2011  was  requested
and the court intended too was to protect the  compensation  amount.  Merely
because it goes through the Income-Tax Department, the same does  not  cease
to be part of  compensation.  Even  the  respondents  herein  had  submitted
before the court at the time of passing the order dated 23.02.2011 that  the
compensation amount needed to be protected and they were willing to  protect
it subject to the order of the  court.  Therefore,  the  respondents,  while
handling of the compensation amount, had to  seek  orders  from  the  court;
going by the way they understood the proceedings.
In that background of the case, we are of  the  view  that  the  respondents
should not have appropriated the refund they received  from  the  Income-Tax
Department. There is nothing wrong in claiming the refund.  The  problem  is
in utilising the refund received. The refund they received is  actually  the
compensation in respect of the land acquired from  the  company  and  it  is
that  amount  which  the  court  wanted  to  protect  by  its  order   dated
23.02.2011. Hence, prima facie, we are of the view  that  the  appropriation
made by the respondents of the refund amount they received from the  Income-
Tax Department was in violation of the order dated 23.02.2011.  It  appears,
for that reason only, even the Division Bench declined to disturb  the  Rule
in  the  contempt  proceedings  issued  against  respondents.  However,  the
Division Bench is wholly wrong in  entering  a  finding  that  there  is  no
violation of the order dated 23.02.2011 in utilising the refund.  No  doubt,
had the refund and subsequent appropriation been of any  amount  other  than
the compensation, there would not have been any contempt at all.
Unfortunately,  the  Division  Bench,  in  the  impugned  order,  failed  to
recapitulate the background of  the  order  dated  23.02.2011  and  its  own
earlier orders with regard to the refusal for withdrawal by the  respondents
of the compensation deposited in court. Even if  there  be  pressing  needs,
there could not  have  been  any  utilisation  of  the  compensation  amount
without leave of the court. We find that the Division Bench has  taken  note
of the expenditure made by the respondents of the amount they  received.  To
quote the relevant background:
“We have also looked into the details of utilisation of the refund as  given
in the schedule being Annexure ‘L’ to the stay application filed before  us,
wherefrom  it  appears  that  Rs.1,19,18,723/-  was  paid   towards   arrear
electricity charges by three account payee cheques drawn on Axis Bank  Ltd.,
particulars   whereof   have   been   given   in   the   schedule.   Another
Rs.2,23,00,000/- has been kept in fixed deposit  as  lien  for  issuance  of
bank guarantee favouring CESC Ltd., against the security deposit to be  paid
to CESC Ltd., for continuation of supply of electricity.  This  payment  has
been made by cheque  dated  28th  June,  2014  and  also  by  transfer  from
Syndicate Bank on 28th June, 2014. A sum of  Rs.24,92,582/-  has  been  paid
towards arrear Central Sales Tax [Partial Payment];  Rs.34,56,910/-  towards
Employees State Insurance  contribution;  Rs.44,44,044/-  towards  Provident
Fund contribution; Rs.66,00,000/- towards arrear dues of  Jute  Corporation,
a government body and  Rs.4,68,85,198/-  towards  arrear  wages,  arrear  ex
gratia payment, arrear gratuity and other arrear dues of the workmen.”

It is also seen from the order that the Division Bench  had  taken  note  of
the paltry balance in the accounts of  the  company  as  on  27.06.2015.  To
quote:


“We directed the company to furnish us with details of its bank  operations.
It appears that the company has about twelve bank accounts in  operation  in
India and the combined balance in all these accounts taken  together  as  on
27th June, 2015 was Rs.13,96,188.79P. Our attention has been  drawn  by  Mr.
Mookherjee to the fact  that  there  are  three  other  bank  accounts  with
combined balance of not more than Rs.3,44,436/- which  have  not  been  used
for over seven years and the company also has a bank account  outside  India
that has a balance of 936  pounds  [less  than  Rs.1,00,000/-  in  value  in
Indian currency].”

It may be seen that the respondents have been managing the  affairs  of  the
company for a few  years  despite  the  futile  attempts  made  by  them  to
withdraw the compensation lying in deposit in court.
As  held  by  this  Court  in  Delhi  Development   Authority   v.   Skipper
Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and another[2], and  going  a  step  further,  the
Court  has  a  duty  to  issue  appropriate  directions  for  remedying   or
rectifying the things done in violation of the orders. In that  regard,  the
Court may even take restitutive measures at any stage of the proceedings.
In the background as above of the case, the Division Bench should  not  have
interfered with the order dated 26.06.2015  passed  by  the  learned  Single
Judge. However, taking note of the fact, an amount of  Rs.2,23,00,000/-  has
been kept in fixed deposit towards lien for issuance of bank  guarantee,  we
make it clear that the respondents shall not operate the  bank  accounts  of
the company after 03.04.2017 without securing an amount of  Rs.8,32,60,331/-
. We also make it clear that without leave of  the  High  Court,  the  fixed
deposit of Rs.2,23,00,000/- with the  Axis  Bank  shall  not  be  withdrawn.
However, it would be open  to  the  respondents  to  apply  for  appropriate
clarification or modification of the order dated  26.06.2015,  after  making
the deposit as above and it will be open to  the  learned  Single  Judge  to
pass the appropriate orders on merits of the application.
We make it clear that any observations made by us are only for  the  purpose
of this order and shall not have any bearing on  the  consideration  by  the
learned Single Judge in the contempt proceedings.
The appeals are allowed as above. There shall be no order as to costs.

                                                   .......................J.
                                                             (KURIAN JOSEPH)

                                                   .......................J.
       (R. BANUMATHI)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 21, 2017.
-----------------------
[1]    (2014) 3 SCC 373
[2]    (1996) 4 SCC 622