Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 44 (CHH)

BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD. v. STATE OF C. G.

2009-02-06

SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2009
ORDER 1. In the original petition, which was filed on 30-12-1996, the petitioner Bharat Aluminiwn Company Limited (for short "BALCO") seeks following reliefs: "I to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the allotment order dated 20-9-93 (Annexure-P/3) issued by respondent No.1. II to issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the demand made,'R.R.C. issued by respondent No.3 by letter dated 8-12-93 (Annexure-P/4). III to issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the demand letter dated 16-12-1996 as also R.R.C. and revised R.R.C. dated 19-121993 (P-9), issued by respondent No.3 being without jurisdiction. IV to declare that Petitioner Company is liable to pay premium @ Rs.200/- per acre and rent @ Rs.20/- per acre per annum to the State Government. V to direct the respondent No.1 to produce the entire record for perusal on the basis of which allotment memo dated 20-9-93 (Annex. P-3) has been issued for perusal by the Hon'ble High Court. VI to grant any other relief deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. Subsequently, BALCO filed an application being I.A.No.203 W /97 on 13-1-1997 for deletion of relief clauses II & III, which was allowed by order dated 28-1-1997 and thereafter by order dated 11-8-1997 time was extended to comply with the order dated 28-1-1997 during the course of the said day. Thus, clauses II & III were accordingly deleted. Reply was filed on behalf of the respondents on 6-11-1997 and thereafter rejoinder to the reply was filed and the same was taken on record 26-2-1998. BALCO filed an application i.e. I.A.No.1873/2004 seeking amendment in the grounds i.e. from 6.8 to 6.12 and reliefs i.e. from VII & VIII. The relief clause reads as under: "VII issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No.1 to enter into and execute a lease deed with the applicant in terms of the letter of allotment dated 18-3-1968 bearing D.O.No. l03 SCI/68; and/or VIII issue an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the Respondents from taking any action contrary to the terms of letter of allotment dated 18-3-1968 bearing D.O.No. l03/SCI/68 issued by the Department of Commerce and Industry." By order dated 24-3-2004 the amendment application i.e. I.A.No.1873/ 2004 was allowed, thereafter by order dated 16-4-2004 time was extended to comply with the order dated 24-3-2004 and the amendment was incorporated on 29-4-2004. 3. 3. On 16-4-2004 this Court ordered as under: "In the above view of the matter, it is directed that no coercive action/steps may be taken against the petitioner till the next date of hearing. Certified copy after amendment is incorporated." 4. The aforesaid interim order was extended time and again till 6-7 - 2005. By disposing of M.(W.)P.No. 758/2004, the interim order was modified on 6-72005 in the following terms: "In view of the above situation, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo, till the next date of hearing." 5. More amendments were sought for by BALCO in the cause title, pleadings i.e. from 5.14 to 5.26 and in the relief part i.e. from IX to XII by filing I.A.No.6439/2005. The relief part reads as under: "IX to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to produce the all proceedings relating to the applications made for 668.67 acres of land for which advance possession was given by the Government as is confirmed form the notices dated 21-6-2005 issued by the Tahsildar and the concerned records of the proceedings for transfer of the land from the respondent No.3, Tahsildar be called for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice. X to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction quashing the notices and subsequent proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar, Korba, vide the notices dated 21-6-2005 and 28-6-2005 (Annexure-P/17), in the interest of justice. XI to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction directing restraining the State Government from taking any coercive action/steps for dispossessing the petitioner (BALCO) nom land in its possession. XII Any other writ, order or direction as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued to protect the lawful interest of the petitioner, in the interest of justice and fair play." The amendment application i.e. LA.No.6439/2005 was allowed by order dated 26-7-2005. The interim order dated 6-7-2005 was modified by order dated 26-7-2005 as under: "........ the petitioner is also directed to maintain status quo in respect of the land, which is in its possession and should not involve in de-forestation activities in respect of the land, which is in petitioner's possession, and also should not try to encroach upon any extra Government land. This order is in addition to the earlier order passed on 6-7-2005. the petitioner is also directed to maintain status quo in respect of the land, which is in its possession and should not involve in de-forestation activities in respect of the land, which is in petitioner's possession, and also should not try to encroach upon any extra Government land. This order is in addition to the earlier order passed on 6-7-2005. Order dated 6-7-2005 shall continue, till the next date of hearing." 6. BALCO filed one more application being LA.No.3 on 12-6-2007 for clarification of the order dated 26-7-2005. The same was disposed of by order dated 2-7-2007 in the following terms: "The earlier order dated 6-7-2005 was passed on the request of the petitioner that the Tehsildar is forcing the petitioner to vacate the land, which is in possession of the petitioner company and vide that order, dated 6-72005 the respondents were directed to maintain the status quo till the next date of hearing. Now if the petitioner wants to raise any construction on the land in his possession and wants to have any other developmental activities on the land, it is for him to seek permission from the concerned authorities and it is for the concerned authorities to consider his case in accordance with law and pass necessary orders. As far as de-forestation on the land in possession of the petitioner is concerned, the same has also to be carried out after seeking permission from the concerned authorities in accordance with law relating to forest and environmental laws." 7. The prayer clauses II & III which were deleted by order dated 11-81997 were included in the amended petition, which was filed on 17-8-2005, without an order of the Court. 8. LA.No.5/200 1, application for intervention filed on behalf of Madan Singh Daharia, is dismissed for want of prosecution. 9. In the part heard matter, one Bupesh Baghel filed an application (I.A.No.13) on 28-1-2009 for permission to intervene in the writ petition on the ground that the intervenor/applicant has filed an intervention application i.e. LA. No.1424-25 of2005, W.P.(C) No.202 of 1995 in the Supreme Court of India wherein the issue of encroachment of forest land was raised. On query it was informed that his application has not been allowed by the Supreme Court till date. No.1424-25 of2005, W.P.(C) No.202 of 1995 in the Supreme Court of India wherein the issue of encroachment of forest land was raised. On query it was informed that his application has not been allowed by the Supreme Court till date. The dispute involved in this petition is with regard to allotment of land, payment of premium and lease rent and, as such, the intervenor has no role to play in the present petition. Thus, the application (I.A.No. 13) is rejected. 10. The brieffacts, in nutshell, as projected by BALCD, for adjudication of the case, are that the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Commerce and Industries vide letter dated 18-3-1968 (Annexure-P/l) proposed to grant land to BALCD for Korba Alumina! Aluminium project on 99 years' lease at a premium ofRs.200/- per acre (payable one time) and annual lease rent ofRs.20/- per acre per annum, reviewable every 30 years subject to maximum enhancement of25%. Premium and lease rent as specified were as per Revenue Book Circular Dated 11-04-1962. For standing growth on the forest land within the total area of the land proposed to be granted, compensation was to be payable in addition to premium and rent. The private lands were to be acquired for BALCD by the State Government on payment of compensation. BALCD, by letter dated 13-6-1968 accepted the proposal for grant of land accordingly. The forest land, which was immediately required for alumina plant to be cleared by BALCD and the remaining forest land may be cleared by the forest department and vacant land to be handed over to BALCD. 1616 acres of land was the estimated requirement. Land was granted for setting up aluminium project by BALCD in Korba. The quantun1 of land to be granted was not restricted to any ceiling limit. It is submitted that land as required for setting up the aluminium project was promised to be granted. 11. On the faith of the aforesaid promise of grant made by the Government at the premium and rent as set out in Government's letter dated 18-03-1968, BALCO started setting up the aluminium project in Korba in 1971. Had the requisite land not been promised at the rates as specified, BALCO would not have set up the aluminium project in Korba. In reliance upon the promised grant BALCO has taken the following steps: (i) The work started in 1971 and the project was completed in 19761977. Had the requisite land not been promised at the rates as specified, BALCO would not have set up the aluminium project in Korba. In reliance upon the promised grant BALCO has taken the following steps: (i) The work started in 1971 and the project was completed in 19761977. (ii) Private land was acquired by BALCO through the Government. Total cost for setting up of the aluminium project was around Rs. 4000 crores in the year 1976. Total area of land occupied by the aluminium project of BALCO by 1976-77 was 2613 acres (including private land) as recorded in the assessment of the Special Area Development Authority (SADA - now Municipal Corporation of Korba) property tax. (iii) Total cost for setting up the project was around Rupees 4000 crores in the year 1976. (iv) In the assessment made by SADA from 1976-77, detailed references are made to constructions already made including aluminium plant, township, quarters, hospital, shops, security barracks etc. which shows that by the said date, all these constructions were in place. (v) BALCO's name has been recorded as possession holder in the records of SAD A. BALCO have paid property tax for the entire land of 2613 acres and are continuing to make payment of the property tax at the rate of 3 crores per annum. Possession of Government land was handed over to BALCO. The details of the lands of which possession was given and the specific averments are made. (vi) The State Government have already received premium and rent for the entire plots of land for the period from 1971 at the rates specified in the Government's letter dated 18-03-1968 without demur. 12. The State Government treated BALCO as lessee. The State Government in its counter affidavit dated 13-02-1978 in another case relating to levy of property tax on BALCO have stated that the land has been given to BALCO on permanent lease. Both the High Court and the Supreme Court were led to proceed on the basis that these lands in possession of BALCO belong to BALCO and i.e. how BALCO was held liable to pay the property tax. High Court's judgment is dated 15-04-1978. The Supreme Court's judgment is dated 26-111981. There is no dispute that the whole of the aforesaid land is utilized for the aluminium project of BALCO and in possession of BALCO. High Court's judgment is dated 15-04-1978. The Supreme Court's judgment is dated 26-111981. There is no dispute that the whole of the aforesaid land is utilized for the aluminium project of BALCO and in possession of BALCO. It may be noted that the state government nominee was on the board of BALCO. Applications for the plots of land were made by BALCO from time to time and in phases according to the requirements as and when different parts of the factory were being set up. Initially 1136 acres of land was immediately required to start work of setting up the main plant and the related township and for other necessary facilities. The State Government, by its letter dated 26-03 -1971 assessed the amount of premium to be paid for 1136 acres of land and the compensation for felling of trees. The details of 1136 acres of land were annexed to the letter. In the letter, the Government indicated that if rates are changed by the Government, then BALCO agrees to pay the changed rates. The maximum change which could have been made to the rates was clearly provided for in the Government letter dated 18.3.1968. On 0504-1971, payments were made by BALCO as demanded in respect of 1136 acres of land. The rates applied by the State Government were as per. the rates specified in the Government letter dated 18-03-1968 and in line with the Revenue Book Circular dated 11-4-1962. 13. Possession of the remaining 668.67 acres of land was also received from time to time as and when required for setting up the different parts of the factory. No demand for the premium and lease rent was made on BALCO. The applications relating to 668.67 acres of land were made from time to time between 1968 to 1984. It will also appear from the Chart annexed to the Counter Affidavit of the Government; the purposes for which the land was required found place in the application. The 668.67 acres of land was received by BALCO after removal of the trees by the forest department and hence no question of payment of any compensation to the forest department. Since no formal demand for premium and rent was raised in respect of668.67 acres as was done in respect of the 1136 acres of land, no premium could be paid immediately upon taking of possession. Since no formal demand for premium and rent was raised in respect of668.67 acres as was done in respect of the 1136 acres of land, no premium could be paid immediately upon taking of possession. Ultimately, in 2005, BALCO has paid the amount of premium calculated at the rates mentioned in the Government's letter dated 18-3-1968 for 668.67 acres of land and the same has been accepted by the Government. The letter dated 26-31971 flows out of the letter of grant dated 18-3-1968 by which the Government promised to grant land, on the terms stated in the letter. Significantly, the letter dated 26-3-1971 mentions subject and the grant of the Government land to BALCO. Thereafter, the three plots of land aggregating 1136 acres have been mentioned for payment of forest compensation and the premium and rent have been calculated. It all flows from the parent letter of grant and is based upon the letter dated 18-3-1968. It shows that BALCO had demanded immediate delivery of 1136 acres of land for setting up of the plant and accordingly the Government in the first phase calculated the rent and-premium for total 1136 acres of land and asked BALCO to deposit the same. This letter dated 26-3-1971 does not say that no further land would be allocated to BALCO by way of grant of Government land. By a letter dated 28-2-1980 issued on behalf of the Collector to the Additional Tahsildar, Korba regarding 1771.15 acres of Government land, out of which proposal of338.66 acres of land has been presented to the Government for sanction till date and the Tahsildar, Korba is asked to inspect and report with respect to the remaining land, since proposal was pending with him. 14. Shri Anindo Mitra, learned Sr. Advocate with Shri Prashanto C. Sen, Shri Abhishek Sinha, Shri Pratul Shandilya, Shri Bhaskar Pyasi and Shri Ghanshyam Patel, learned Advocates appearing for the petitioner would submit that at present BALCO is in possession of2753.91 acres of land including 914.31 acres of private land. According to the affidavit filed by the Government, BALCO is in possession of2753.91 acres of land out of that 1839.60 acres is Government land and 914.31 acres is private land. The Government in its letter dated 18-31968 allotted 1136 acres of land at the rate of payment of premium ofRs.2001per acre and the annual rent ofRs.20/- per acre. According to the affidavit filed by the Government, BALCO is in possession of2753.91 acres of land out of that 1839.60 acres is Government land and 914.31 acres is private land. The Government in its letter dated 18-31968 allotted 1136 acres of land at the rate of payment of premium ofRs.2001per acre and the annual rent ofRs.20/- per acre. In addition, compensation was also payable in respect of standing growth on the forest lands. By letter dated 263-1971, the Government Authorities calculated the premium and rent on the basis of aforesaid rate in respect of 1136 acres. On the faith that the lease of requisite land for the aluminium project in Korba would be granted for 99 years, BALCO accepted the offer and deposited the premium and lease rent, in addition to the compensation for forest growth standing on the forest land. After lapse of 22 years and after having accepted the rent and premium at the aforesaid agreed rates in respect of 1136 acres of land, the State Government by letter dated 20-91993 (Annexure-P/3) claimed the rent at the rate ofRs.1601- as annual rent and premium at the rate ofRs.1600/- per acre. For 338.66 acres the total premium calculated was Rs.5,41 ,856/- at the rate ofRs.16001- per acre and annual lease rent was Rs.54, 185/- at the rate ofRs.160/- per acre. The said 338.66 acres as stated in the letter dated 26- 3 -1971 was a portion of 1136 acres of land, which was allotted earlier in 1971. 15. Learned senior counsel would further submit that once the promise has been made, the respondents cannot take a different stand other than its 'promise. The premium and lease rent was payable as per the offer dated 18-3-1968, which was acted upon and the possession was handed over to BALCO. The rate of premium and rent specified in the letter dated 18-3-1968 is acceptable to BALCO. Shri Mitra would next submit that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable to the facts of the present case. In support of his contention, he relies on the decisions of Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. State of MP and others1 , Gujarat State Financial Corporation Vs. M/s Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 2, State of Punjab Vs. Nestle India Ltd. and another? 16. In support of his contention, he relies on the decisions of Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. State of MP and others1 , Gujarat State Financial Corporation Vs. M/s Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 2, State of Punjab Vs. Nestle India Ltd. and another? 16. BALCO further prays for a writ/direction to the State Government to execute lease deed in terms of the letter dated 18-3-1968. The State Government has treated BALCO as a permanent lessee, as is evident from the affidavit filed by the State Government in a property tax case. On 21-9-2000, office of the Collector has admitted in the letter as under: "The Government has provided land on 99 years' lease for the establishment of BALCO Project. The lease deed of the above said lease is urgently required which has to be sent to the Government." 17. The chart annexed to the return filed by the State Government ultimately shows that 27 applications have been received at the Tahsildar's office relating to 1136 and 668.67 acres of land. Out of 27 number of applications, only two applications have been sent to the State Government and the remaining applications have not been processed and sent by the Tahsildar's office up till now. These applications were made mainly from 1968 to 1980 consequent to the letter dated 18-3-1968. Two applications for execution of lease of 1136 acres have been made. One application thereafter for 31.51 acres of land, another application for 298.10 acres of land, application for 47.35 acres of land and application for 64.67 acres of land were made. Execution of formal deed is required for implementation of the expansion projects of the Company. BALCO has further paid revenues after disinvestment in five years to the tune of Rs 4000 crores to the State Government and Rs.1850 crores to the Central Government. BALCO is further paying approximately Rs.3 crores per annum to the Municipal Authority as Corporation Tax. 18. In the letters dated 25-8-2000 & 21-9-2000 the State Government admitted that BALCO was entitled to get formal lease deed. Execution of formal lease deed has been delayed due to inaction on the part of the State authorities, therefore, the State Government may be directed to execute the formal lease deed on the basis of letter dated 18-3-1968 for the entire land i.e. 1804.67 acres or at least 1616 acres of land at this stage. 19. Execution of formal lease deed has been delayed due to inaction on the part of the State authorities, therefore, the State Government may be directed to execute the formal lease deed on the basis of letter dated 18-3-1968 for the entire land i.e. 1804.67 acres or at least 1616 acres of land at this stage. 19. Shri Mitra would next submit that long possession of land for more than 40 years gives rise to a presumption of grant, although no formal document has been executed. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in C. Periaswami Gounder Vs. Sundaresa Ayyar wherein the Supreme Court relied upon the decision of Privy Council in Mohammed Muzafar Ali Musavi Vs. Jabeda Khatun . 20. During pendency of the writ petition subsequent events were brought on record by amendments, which were ordered by this Court. Five notices dated 21-6-2005 & 28-6-2005 were issued under Section 248 of the MP/CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 {for short "the Code, 1959") by the Tahsildar calling upon the petitioner asto why the land encroached by BALCO be not taken back. The allegation that BALCO is in unauthorized possession is baseless, as the land in dispute is in possession of the petitioner for the last several years. Thus, notice under Section 248 of the Code, 1959 was illegal and bad. Learned counsel would further submit that even if there is some disputed question of fact in such situation the Court can adjudicate the matter in its writ jurisdiction. Thus, it is prayed that the State/respondents may be directed to levy the premium and annual lease rent on the basis of letter dated 18-3-1968, further they may be directed to execute the formal lease deed in favour of the petitioner - BALCO. 21. Per contra, Shri Vinay Harit, learned Dy. Advocate General with Shri Shashank Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents would submit that the letter dated 18-3-1968 was a D.O. letter written to Shri S. Vohra, Managing Director of BALCO. This was simple proposal by the Government subject to acceptance of certain terms and conditions containing therein. Thereafter no final decision was taken and communicated in respect of the subject matter to BALCO. The letter does not indicate the size of land and the area. This was simple proposal by the Government subject to acceptance of certain terms and conditions containing therein. Thereafter no final decision was taken and communicated in respect of the subject matter to BALCO. The letter does not indicate the size of land and the area. The subsequent letter dated 13-6-1968 whereby BALCO conveyed its acceptance for a total requirement of about 1616 acres of land wherein it was clearly stated that the particular lands as indicated therein may be handed over to the CPM (Chief Project Manager). Thus, it is c1earthat till 13-6-1968 neither the land was identified nor any specific area was handed over to BALCO. For the first time the petitioner made applications dated 5-3-1968 and 18-9-1968 for allotment of32.72 acres of land in villages Roagbahari and Jambahar for Red Mud Pond and for allotment of316.77 acres of land in villages Risda and Kohadiya for the purpose of plant, administrative area and water treatment plant (Annexure-R/4 to the additional return dated 14-9-2006). Thus, for the first time the petitioner submitted particulars of 349.49 acres of land in its letter dated 18-9-1998 for allotment. Several applications were made by BALCO between the period from 1971 to 1977. 22. Shri Harit, would further submit that BALCO has failed to point out a particular date on which it came into possession of particular part of land. It is a case of the respondents that the land was never handed over to BALCO. This is a disputed question off acts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It is not clear from the letter dated 26-3-1971 also as to when possession of the land admeasuring 1136 acres of Government land including 947.95 acres of forest land was given to BALCO. Learned counsel would next submit that the land admeasuring 338.66 acres of land under letter dated 20-12-1993 was a part of proposed land as per the letter dated 18-3-1968 i.e. 1136 acres of land. Thus, the petitioner may be held as rank trespasser. Out of 1659.09 acres of land allegedly in possession of BALCO is recorded as "Bada Jhad Ka Jungle" and, as such, the same cannot be allotted to any person under the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and judgment & order passed by the Ron'ble Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of India and other. 23. Out of 1659.09 acres of land allegedly in possession of BALCO is recorded as "Bada Jhad Ka Jungle" and, as such, the same cannot be allotted to any person under the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and judgment & order passed by the Ron'ble Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of India and other. 23. Shri Rarit would also submit that the State is neither competent nor has allotted any forest land to BALCO. In respect of the show cause notices dated 21-6-2005 & 28-6-2005, it is submitted that challenge is to the show cause notices. BALCO without responding to the show cause notices has sought relief of quashment of the said show cause notices. The challenge is premature and the same deserves to be dismissed. 24. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 25. On 18-3-1968 Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Commerce & Industry wrote a letter to Shri S. Vohra, Managing Director, BALCO, which reads as under: "D.O. No. 103/SCI/68 Government of Madhya Pradesh Commerce and Industries Department Devendra Nath Secretary D.O.NO. 103/SCI/68 Government of Madhya Pardesh Commerce and Industries Department Devendra Nath Secretary Dtd.18.03.68 Dear Shri Vohra, Kindly refer to the previous correspondence on the subject of the transfer of Government land to the Bharat Aluminium Company for the Korba Alumina! Aluminium Project. It is proposed that land may be granted to the Bharat Aluminium Company on a 99 years lease subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. The Government lands may be granted on the payment of a premium of Rs. 200/- per acre. 2. In addition, in respect of the forest land involved the BALCO may pay compensation in respect of the standing growth according to the calculation of the Forest Department of the State Government where such lands are transferred to BALCO with the standing growth. Or In the alternative, the Forest Department will clear the forest growth through the agency of contractors or departmentally as may be deemed necessary. Either ofthe above alternatives may be restored to depending upon the urgency of the needs ofthe BALCO. 3. Or In the alternative, the Forest Department will clear the forest growth through the agency of contractors or departmentally as may be deemed necessary. Either ofthe above alternatives may be restored to depending upon the urgency of the needs ofthe BALCO. 3. In respect of private tenure lands which will have to be acquired for BALCO or such tenure lands as may have been acquired by the M.P. Electricity Board and which will be transferred to BALCO, the BALCO will have to pay the actual costs of acquisition to the State Government in the case of lands to be acquired in future and to the M.P. Electricity Board in the case of lands already acquired by the M.P. Electricity Board. 4. In respect of the entire land, i.e. Government lands and the acquired private tenure lands, the BALCO will be liable to pay an annual lease rent of Rs. 20/- per acre with the condition that the ground rent would be reviewable every 30 years subject to the condition that the enhancement will not exceed 25%. 5. All charges in connection with the execution and registration of lease/leases in this regard as also other incidental legal expenses shall be payable by BALCO. You are requested to convey your consent to the above terms and conditions so that the further action for the transfer of lands to the BALCO may be taken. 2. In order to work out the exact details of the land required by BALCO, Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur has been separately requested to draw up detailed plans of the entire requirements in consultation with the Chief Project Engineer, BALCO, Korba and officers concerned of the State Department. You are requested to issue instructions to the Chief Project Engineer, BALCO, Korba to contact Commissioner, Bilaspur in this regard. Yours sincerely Sd/ (Devendra Nath) Shri S. Vohra Managing Director Bharat Aluminium Company F -41 , New Delhi South Extension Part I, Ring Road, New Delhi-3 No. ..... Dated, the 18th March, 1968 Copy to Shri R.B. Lal, Secretary to Government, Madhya Pradesh, Forest Department, for information. Sd/ (Devendra Nath) Secretary to Government Madhya Pradesh Commerce and Industry Deptt." 26. In response to the said letter on 13-6-1968 the Managing Director, BALCO, expressed the requirement of land i.e. 1616 acres. Dated, the 18th March, 1968 Copy to Shri R.B. Lal, Secretary to Government, Madhya Pradesh, Forest Department, for information. Sd/ (Devendra Nath) Secretary to Government Madhya Pradesh Commerce and Industry Deptt." 26. In response to the said letter on 13-6-1968 the Managing Director, BALCO, expressed the requirement of land i.e. 1616 acres. It was further stated that the forest land immediately required to BALCO for the alumina plant would be taken possession of for clearance of the forest growth by BALCO. The letter dated 13 -6-1968 reads as under: "BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED (A Govt. of India Undertaking) No. HO/PROJ/l(3)/67 F-41, New Delhi South Extension Part I, Ring Road, New Delhi. New Delhi dated 13th June, 1968 The Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Commerce and Industry Department Bhopal (MP). Sub: Land for Korba Aluminium Project. Dear Sir, With reference to your D.O.-Letter No. 103/SCI/68, dated 18th March, 1968, we writ to say that we agree to the land required for the above project being transferred to the Bharat Aluminium Company Limited by the Govt. of Madhya Pradesh on the following terms and conditions: 1. The land may be transferred to the company on a 99 years lease basis; 2. The Government lands may be granted to the company on the payment of a premium of Rs. 200/- per acre; 3. In addition to the above premium of Rs. 200/- per acre in respect of the forest land involved, the company will pay compensation for standing growth according to the calculations of the Forest Department of the State Government, where such lands are transferred to this company with the standing growth; 4. In respect of private tenure lands, the company will pay the actual cost of acquisition to the State Government; 5. In respect of lands to be transferred to the Company from M.P. Electricity Board, the company will pay actual cost of the ~quisition incurred by the State Government. 6. In respect of entire land, i.e. Government lands and the acquired private tenure lands the company will pay an annual lease rent of Rs. 20/- per acre with the condition that the ground rent may be renewed after every 30 years subject to the condition that the enhancement of the ground rent shall not exceed 20% on each such occasion; and 7. 20/- per acre with the condition that the ground rent may be renewed after every 30 years subject to the condition that the enhancement of the ground rent shall not exceed 20% on each such occasion; and 7. All charges in connection with the execution and registration of lease/leases in this regard, as also other incidental legal expenses, will be borne by the company. The total requirements of land are about 1616 acres. The portion of forest land immediately required by us for the Alumina Plant would be taken possession of and cleared of the forest growth by us while the remaining forest land may be clear felled by the forest department of M.P'-and the vacant land handed over to this company as early as possible. The Chief Project Engineer (Kb) of the Company is being requested to demarcate the land and furnish full details thereof. C.P.E. would also indicate the details of the forestland which the company would clear. As requested by you he would be contacting the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division to take over possession of the land. It is requested that as soon as the particulars of the land are indicated the concerned land may be handed over to the C.P.E. (Kb) pending execution of formal lease documents. Yours faithfully, for and on behalf of Bharat Aluminium Company Limited Sd/ (T. M. Lakshminarayanan) Managing Director Copy to :Chief Project Engineer, Korba Aluminium Plant, Korba Post Office, FCI Colony, Bilaspur, Distt. (MP). 1. Letter No. 103/SCI/68 dated 18th March, 1968. 2. Note put up to the Board at its 15th meeting held on 27th May, 1968. 3. Extract of the Minutes of the Board meeting for necessary action. He is requested to keep the Headquarters office informed of the progress made in taking possession of the land. He as also requested to contact the concerned officers of the State Govt. and prepare normal lease documents and forward them to headquarters for further necessary action. Sd/ (T. M. Lakshminarayanan) Managing Director" 27. He is requested to keep the Headquarters office informed of the progress made in taking possession of the land. He as also requested to contact the concerned officers of the State Govt. and prepare normal lease documents and forward them to headquarters for further necessary action. Sd/ (T. M. Lakshminarayanan) Managing Director" 27. Consequent thereupon, the Deputy Collector for Collector, Bilaspur, by letter Annexure-PI 18 directed the Chief Engineer, BALCO to deposit a sum of Rs.3, 19,656=75 for loss of forest land admeasuring 947.95 acres in addition to pay the premium at the rate ofRs.2001- per acre for 1136 acres to the tune of Rs.2,27,2001- and annual lease rent at the rate ofRs.201- per acre per annum for the same land to tune ofRs.22,7201- in total Rs.2,49,9201- was directed to be deposited for 1136 acres of Government land. It was stated in the letter that the amount was being accepted in anticipation of approval by the State Government, however, if there is any change in the schedule BALCO was required to pay the same. It was further stated that BALCO, if agreeable to the conditions stated therein, should deposit the said amount. The details of 1136 acres of land was annexed with the letter at pages No.89 to 94 of paper book (part-I). 28. In response, BALCO immediately deposited the compensation to the tune of Rs.3, 19,656-75 for forest growth on the forest land measuring 947.95 acres on 24-3-1971 and letter to that effect was sent to the Conservator of forest, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur on 3/5-4-1971 (a part of Annexure-P/18). Premium for 1136 acres of Government land at the rate ofRs.2001- per acre and lease rent for the said land at the rate of Rs.201- per acre per annum, for the period 1-41971 to 31-1-1972 was also deposited with an information to the Deputy Collector, Bilaspur, on 5-4-1971 (again part of Annexure- P 118). Prior to that an application was made to the Divisional Forest Officer, North Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, for transfer of27.69 acres of forest land in villages namely, Jambahar, Hogebheri, Bhatgaon, Bhulajhiria& Saraipali (Annexure-P/20). 29. One more letter {page No.l11 of paper book (part-I)} was sent . referring the letter dated 18-3-1968 for allotmentof35.51 acres of land in villages namely, Jambahar & Rogbahari. 29. One more letter {page No.l11 of paper book (part-I)} was sent . referring the letter dated 18-3-1968 for allotmentof35.51 acres of land in villages namely, Jambahar & Rogbahari. On 23-1-1973, an application was made for transfer of 3.11 acres of Government land to BALCO for putting ropeway from plant site to Phutkapahar, in villages Kohadiya, Jambahar, Rogbahari, Bhatgaon and Bhulajhiria. A general notice was issued on 8-8-1975 to the public stating that 298.10 acres of land in village Risda, Halka No.29 was being handed over to BALCO. One application was made on 9-8-1975 to the Sub Divisional Officer, Katghora, Korba, for transfer of Government land on long term lease to BALCO of village Risda. Several letters of this nature for transfer of lands were made on 24-4-1997 (Annexure-P/23), 25-6-1970, 15-10':1975,3-6-1972, etc. A letter was written on 21-9-1972 to BALCO for transfer of 47 .35 acres of forest land for putting up Railway Lines. On 26-9-1973 the Deputy Collector, Bilaspur, wrote a letter to the Administrative Officer, BALCO, that 62.32 acres of forest land of villages Risda & Rogbahari, after harvesting the forest produce, would be handed over to BALCO and it was declined to handover 2.35 acres of land of village Dondro. 30. On 6-10-1993 BALCO wrote a letter to the Collector stating therein that applications on various dates have been made for transfer of 1771.15 acres of Government land which have not been transferred till date. The petitioner was facing a lot of difficulties. Copy of the letter dated 6-10-1993 reads as under: . BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED (M.P.) Reminder to the letter dated 6-10-1993 was also sent on 2-2-2099. On 57 -1984 a letter was written by BALCD to Tahsildar, Korba, for considering the transfer of land. Prior to that on 30-3-1981 a letter was sent to the Collector for grant of lease on Government land acquired by BALCO for 1771.15 acres. The letter dated 30-3-1981 reads as under: "BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED (A Govt. of India Undertaking) No. KBIMTS/1313 Korba, dated 30 March, 1981. To, The Collector, Bilaspur (MP). Sub.: Grant oflease on Government land required by Bharat Aluminium Company Limited. Dear Sir, Your kind attention is invited to our proposals mentioned below submitted alongwith details from time to time for grant of lease of Govt. lands required by Bharat Aluminium Company Limited : 1 Kb/22-M-4/6127 dtd. 21.9.1968 336.66 acres 2 Kb-Para/State/711 dtd. To, The Collector, Bilaspur (MP). Sub.: Grant oflease on Government land required by Bharat Aluminium Company Limited. Dear Sir, Your kind attention is invited to our proposals mentioned below submitted alongwith details from time to time for grant of lease of Govt. lands required by Bharat Aluminium Company Limited : 1 Kb/22-M-4/6127 dtd. 21.9.1968 336.66 acres 2 Kb-Para/State/711 dtd. 20.8.1970 49.83 acres 3 Kb/Est/G-1 091 02/IV /739 dtd. 3.1.1975 3.17 acres 4 Kb/Est/1829dtd.9.8.1975 298.10 acres 5 Kb/Est/Ropeway/2043 dtd. 3.9.75 30.40 acres 6 Kb/Est/C-109107 dtd. 5.3.1975 35.51 acres 7 Kb/Est/C-l 09102/l 002 dtd. 28.4.77 215.16 acres 8 Kb/Est/C-109101l3717dtd.10.9.76 799:~2 acres 9 Kb/Est/LA/Revenue dtd. 3.6.1972 1.10 acres 1771.15 acres The above proposals for the lease covered only the Government land falling in the Katghora and Bilaspur Tahsils, we are continuously pursuing the case for the grant of lease. The confirmation for the same is yet to be received. It is to mention that one of the points raised by the Asstt. Registrar while registering the assets of the company that unless the lease is granted by the State Government for the Government land, it may not be possible to register the land acquired in the name of BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED. In view of the above, you are requested to kindly look into the matter and issue necessary order in this connection. Thanking you, Yours faithfully Sd/ (N.L. TANEJA) MANAGER (TOWNSHIP)" 31. On 3 -1-1973 and thereafter on several occasions requests were made to the Collector, Bilaspur, to execute the lease deed in favour of BALCO, as the said land was already leased to BALCO, but no transfer deed was given to BALCO. It is apparent that on the basis of several letters written by BALCO to the Collector for execution of lease deed for 1771 acres of land no order was passed by the Collector or other Revenue Authorities. The petitioner started sending letters since beginning for execution of formal deed and to issue formal letter of allotment. Thereafter, a communication dated 20-9-1993 (Annexure-P/3) was sent to the Collector by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Revenue Department to the effect that the Government has proposed to allot 338.66 acres or 14,75,203 sq. ft. land subject to payment ofRo.5,41•,856/- as premium and Rs.54,185/- as lease rent. It was stated that the lease rent would be collected from the year 1978 at the rate of 15%. 32. ft. land subject to payment ofRo.5,41•,856/- as premium and Rs.54,185/- as lease rent. It was stated that the lease rent would be collected from the year 1978 at the rate of 15%. 32. In the land records of Special Area Development Authority (for short "SADA"), it is recorded that the petitioner was in possession of2613 acres of land. Out of that 234 acres of land was exempted from Property Tax and BALCO was liable to pay the Property Tax on 2379 acres of land, which is evident from Annexure-P/29. 33. Imposition of property tax was challenged by the petitioner in the Higl Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in writ petition No.555 of 1977 (Bharat Aluminium Company Limited Vs. Special Area Development Authority) wherein the State Government took a clear stand in the counter affidavit dated 13-2-1978, which reads as under: ". . . . . ... The petitioner company is a company dealing in State Trading in aluminium with a rl10tive to eam profit. It has its separate annual Budget, which has no connection with the Budget of the Union of India. The lands and properties of the petitioner cannot be termed to be the lands of Union of India or the State. Government properties of the petitioner company are not exempt from Property Tax. The lands held by the petitioners is on permanent leases." 34. On the basis of the averment made by the State Government, BALCO was held liable to pay the Property Tax, by the High Court and thereafter by the Supreme Court in Bharat Aluminium Company Limited Vs. Special Area Development Authority, Korba and others7. Thus, it is found that though, the land in dispute is in possession of BALCO, no formal order has been passed by the State Government to hand over the land. It is further found that the State/ respondents have not raised any objection to construction of the project and other ancillary buildings, holding the same as unauthorized or illegal till notices dated 216-2005 & 28-6-2005 (5 notices) were issued. 35. When BALCO was disinvested and the new management came into existence certain allotments were cancelled. The issue came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India & Others8. After setting out the facts, in para 3 as under: "3. 35. When BALCO was disinvested and the new management came into existence certain allotments were cancelled. The issue came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India & Others8. After setting out the facts, in para 3 as under: "3. The Government of Madhya Pradesh vide its letter dated 18-31968 wrote to BALCO stating that it proposed that land be granted to it on a 99 years' lease subject to the terms and conditions contained therein. The letter envisaged giving on lease government land on payment of premium of Rs. 200 per acre and, in addition thereto also to provide tenure land which was to be acquired and transferred on lease to BALCO on payment by it the actual cost of acquisition plus annual lease rent. Vide its letter dated 136-1968 BALCD gave its assent to the proposal contained in the aforesaid letter of 18-3-1968 for transfer of land to it. BALCD intimated by this letter that the total requirement of land would be about 1616 acres. Thereafter, in addition to the government land which was transferred, the Government of Madhya Pradesh acquired land for BALCD under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on payment of compensation. The District Collector, Bilaspur also granted permission under Section 165(6) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 for acquiring/transferring private land in favour of BALCO. As a result of the aforesaid, BALCO set up its establishment on its acquiring land from and with the help of the State Government. " In para 96 observed as under: "96. The ratio of the decision in Samatha case is inapplicable here as the legal provisions here are different. The land was validly given to BALCD a number of years ago and today it is not open to the State of Chhattisgarh to take a somersault and challenge the correctness of its own action. Furthermore, even with the change in management the land remains with BALCO to whom it had been validly given on lease." 36. The State Government has given a chart {page No.300 of paper book (part - I)} intimating the applications made by BALCD for allotment of land and possession of BALCD in the land i.e. in total 1804. 71 acres. The contents of the chart are given below: 37. The State Government has given a chart {page No.300 of paper book (part - I)} intimating the applications made by BALCD for allotment of land and possession of BALCD in the land i.e. in total 1804. 71 acres. The contents of the chart are given below: 37. Thus, it is clear that BALCO was in possession of the above stated lands continuously without any hindrance. The State Government regularly accepted the taxes and even entered into a M.O.V. (Memorandum of Understanding) for expansion of the project. Promissory Estoppel: 38. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the doctrine of estoppel is applicable to the facts of the present case, as a definite promise was made by letter dated 18-3-1968, which was accepted by the BALCO in letter dated 13-6-1968, thereafter re-affirmed by the Government in its letter dated 263-1971. The premium and lease rent was accordingly deposited. Thus, the' petition is liable to escalation at the rate of maximum 25% at the end of every 30 years, as is provided in the letter. 39. In Steel Authority of India Ltd's easel (supra) wherein the State Government in its letter put a condition inter alia that "in respect of occupied land i.e. land belonging to private persons, the Central Government should pay the cost of acquisition. . . . . .. to the owners of land and capitalised value at 25 times the amount of land revenue assessed on such lands to the State Government". Accordingly, two deeds of assignment were executed and the land was transferred to Hindustan Steel Limited. The question of payment of more land revenue was raised by the State in letter dated 4-3-1987. The Supreme Court observed as under: "24. Accordingly, two deeds of assignment were executed and the land was transferred to Hindustan Steel Limited. The question of payment of more land revenue was raised by the State in letter dated 4-3-1987. The Supreme Court observed as under: "24. Though Mr Banthia has urged that as no reply was sent to the letter of the State Government dated 25-9-1958, therefore, there was no contract under Article 299 of the Constitution of India between the Central Government and the State Government regarding the non-payment of land revenue, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel inasmuch as by the conduct of the parties it is very clear that both the Governments agreed with the terms mentioned in the letter of the State Government dated 25-9-1958 and, therefore, there was also a contract between the parties regarding the exemption from payment of land revenue if 25 times of the land revenue was paid once and for all. The contention that such a contract is not executed in the form required under Article 299 cannot be accepted. This point was not raised in the High Court. Apart ITom that it is clear that Article 299 applies only to contracts to be executed in exercise of "executive power" and not to those executed by virtue of statutory power like Section 58 of the Code. (See State of Haryana Vs. Lal Chand; Lalji Khimji Vs. State ofGujarat.) In the latter case, Anand, J. (as he then was) observed as follows; (SCC p. 572, para 9) 2009(2) C,G.L.J. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. State of C.G. 47 (Agnihotri, J.) "There is a marked distinction between contracts which are executed in exercise of the executive powers and agreements or orders made which are statutory in nature ... In State of Haryana Vs. Lal Chand this Court considered a contract granting exclusive privilege of liquor vending, in exercise of the statutory powers referable to the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and the Punjab Liquor Licence Rules, 1956, and held that the grant of the exclusive privilege gave rise to a contract of a statutory nature, distinguished from the one executed under Article 299(1) and, therefore, compliance with Article 299(1) was not required in such a case." 40. In Nestle India Ltd s case3 (supra), the Supreme Court observed as under: "28. This Court rejected all the three pleas of the Government. In Nestle India Ltd s case3 (supra), the Supreme Court observed as under: "28. This Court rejected all the three pleas of the Government. It reiterated the well-known preconditions for the operation of the doctrine: (1) a clear and unequivocal promise knowing and intending that it would be acted upon by the promisee; (2) such acting upon the promise by the promisee so that it would be inequitable to allow the promisor to go back on the promise. 29. As for its strengths it was said: that the doctrine was not limited only to cases where there was some contractual relationship or other preexisting legal relationship between the parties. The principle would be applied even when the promise is intended to create legal relations or affect a legal relationship which would arise in future. The Government was held to be equally susceptible to the operation of the doctrine in whatever area or field the promise is made - contractual, administrative or statutory. To put it in the words of the Court: "The law may, therefore, now be taken to be settled as a result of this decision, that where the Government makes a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the promisee and, in fact, the promisee, acting in reliance on it, alters his position, the Governme1jlt ',could be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promisee, notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Article 299 of the Constitution. (SCC p. 442, para 24) [E]quity will, in a given case where justice and fairness demand, prevent a person from insisting on strict legal rights, even where they arise, not under any contract, but on his own title deeds or under statute. (SCC p. 425, para 8) Whatever be the nature of the function which the Government is discharging, the Government is subject to the rule of promissory estoppel and if the essential ingredients of this rule are satisfied, the Government can be compelled to carry out the promise made by it. (SCC p. 453, para 33) (emphasis added)." 41. (SCC p. 425, para 8) Whatever be the nature of the function which the Government is discharging, the Government is subject to the rule of promissory estoppel and if the essential ingredients of this rule are satisfied, the Government can be compelled to carry out the promise made by it. (SCC p. 453, para 33) (emphasis added)." 41. By letter dated 16-12-1996 {page 405 of paper book (part-II)} the Tahsildar, Korba, directed the General Manager, BALCO to deposit a sum of Rs.15, 71,371/- with interest at the rate of 15%. In response to the said letter, BALCO has deposited a sum ofRs.12,24,718/- as lease rent of 1804.67 acres of land up to 31 5t March, 2007. 42. If there is no proof of title available, on the basis of possession of the petitioner it can be held as it was a lawful possession particularly in view of the fact that the State Government has been receiving the taxes continuously and never issued any notices, objecting the construction as being unauthorized. The doctrine of estoppel is applicable to the facts of the present case. The State Government cannot be permitted to resile from its promise. BALCO has made several applications for execution of formal lease deed, which remained undecided till date. 43. In Mohamed Muzafar Ali Musavis (supra), the Privy Council observed as under: "The presumption of an origin in some lawful title, which the COUl1s have so often readily made in order to support possessory rights, long and quietly enjoyed, where no actual proof of title is forthcoming, is one which is not a mere branch of the law of evidence. It is restored to because of failure of actual evidence." 44. The Supreme Court in C. Periaswami Gounder4 (supra) relying on the observation of Privy Council in Mohamed Muzafar Ali Musavis (supra), observed that "it is, therefore, clear that the said principle can only be invoked where there is no acceptable evidence ofthe terms of the grant." 45. The law on doctrine of estoppel is clear that if a promisee knowing and intending that it would be acted upon by the promisee and such acting upon the promise by the promisee it would be inequitable to allow the promisor to go back on the promise. 46. The law on doctrine of estoppel is clear that if a promisee knowing and intending that it would be acted upon by the promisee and such acting upon the promise by the promisee it would be inequitable to allow the promisor to go back on the promise. 46. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case wherein promise was made, BALCO acted upon the promise by establishing 2009(2) C.G.L.J. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. State of C.G. 49 (Agnihotri, J.) the project and invested a sum of Rs4000 crores, declaring at this stage that BALCO is in unauthorized possession is not proper. In regard to notices: 47. Subsequently, notices were issued on 21-6-2005 & 28-6-2005 (Annexure-PI17) by Tahsildar, Korba, calling upon the petitioner as to why action for eviction from unauthorized land may not be initiated for breaching the provisions of Section 248 of the Code, 1959. 48. The petitioner - BALCO without submitting its reply to Tahsildar had approached this Court directly by seeking amendment in the pending petition on 10-7-2005, which was ordered on 26-7-2005. In this regard, Shri Mitra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that in the facts situation of the case, the disputed facts can be decided by this Court. 49. Admittedly, BALCO is in possession of947.95 acres of forest land. The Supreme Court in TN. Godavarman S case6 (supra) observed as under: "4. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance and therefore, the provisions made therein for conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word "forest" must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognized forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term "Forest land", occurring in Section 2, will not only include "forest" as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The term "Forest land", occurring in Section 2, will not only include "forest" as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof. This aspect has been made abundantly clear in the decisions of this court in Ambica Quarry Works Vs. State of Gujarat, Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Vs. State of UP and recently in the order dated 29.11.1996 (Supreme Court Monitoring Committee Vs. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority). The earlier decision of this Court in State of Bihar VS'. Banshi Ram Modi has, therefore, to be understood in the light of these subsequent decisions. We consider it necessary to reiterate this settled position emerging from the decisions of this Court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the perception of any State Government or authority. This has become necessary also because of the stand taken on behalf of the State of Rajsthan, even at this late stage, relating to permissions granted for mining in such area which is clearly contrary to the decisions of this Court. It is reasonable to assume that any State Government which has failed to appreciate the correct position in law so far, will forthwith correct its stance and take the necessary remedial measures without any further delay." 50. Subsequently, the Supreme Court directed to pay the amount for compensatory afforestation. The industry, which has obtained forest land with prior permission of Ministry of Environment & Forest, Government of India (M. 0 .E.F.) has to pay money for compensatory afforestation, if the same is not paid and further has to pay net present value (NPV). 51. Shri Harit, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State/respondents, would submit that the legality of the impugned notices may not be considered in this petition, as it requires examination of evidences and witnesses. 52. 51. Shri Harit, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State/respondents, would submit that the legality of the impugned notices may not be considered in this petition, as it requires examination of evidences and witnesses. 52. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the notices, in the light of above preceding paras, it is observed that BALCO would reply to the show cause notices and proper order may be passed by the Revenue Authorities, in accordance with law, after disposal of the applications pending consideration before the Revenue Authorities. 53. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, it is ordered that: ORDER • For 1136 acres of land for which BALCO has paid premium and lease rent in accordance with the letter dated 18-3-1968, BALCD shall not be liable to pay the increased premium and lease rent, except as per the promise made in the letter dated 18-3-1968. • For 947.95 acres of forest land, BALCD shall be liable to pay money for compensatory afforestation and NPV, if not paid earlier as determined by the M.O.E.F., Government of India. • For remaining land i.e. 668.67 acres, BALCD shall be liable to pay the premium and lease rent as on the date when possession was taken over in accordance with the Revenue Book Circular. • The possession of the land on 1804.67 acres cannot be held as unauthorized possession, as the petitioner was allowed to set up its project long back without any objection by the State Authorities. Further the State Authorities have collected the taxes and the Corporation has also collected the property tax. • All the applications made by BALCO which have not been considered till date the same shall be considered forthwith and appropriate orders shall be passed. • After the orders are passed on the applications made by BALCO, BALCO may file reply to the notices dated 21-6-2005 & 28-6-2005 issued by the Tahsildar, Korba. • The impugned letter dated 20-9-1993 (Annexure- P /3) is accordingly quashed. • This petition is allowed partly to the above extent. No order asto costs. Petition Partly Allowed.