591 M/S. M.S.P.L. LIMITED A v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

A “A joint stock company is invented only to defraud creditors.” (P.106-107) “Let us not lose our souls in the name of development by depriving land holders of their land holdings.” (P.108)

45Copy pinpoint45. A perusal of the above makes it amply clear that the Division B Bench introduced several value judgments and policy views in order to interpret the provisions of the 1966 Act and the 2002 Act. It is only as a measure of caution that the said aspect is being taken note of. Such value judgments and policy views are beyond the domain of the Courts. The Courts should refrain itself from expressing value judgments and C policy views in order to interpret statutes. Statutes are to be read in their plain language and not otherwise. Reference may be had to the following decisions: (i) Regina Vs. Barnet London Borough Council; (1983) 1 AII ER 226; D (ii) Union of India Vs. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd.; (2001) 4 SCC 139 (Para 17) (iii) D.R. Venkatachalam Vs. Transport Commissioner; (1977) 2 SCC 273 (Para 29) (iv) Padma Sundara Rao Vs. State of Tamil Nadu; (2002) 3 E SCC 533 (Para 13); (v) Harbhajan Singh Vs. Press Council of India; (2002) 3 SCC 722 (Para 11) and (vi) Unique Butyle Tube Industries Vs. U.P. Financial F Corporation; (2003) 2 SCC 455 (Para 12). H. Challenge to acquisition by a minority (10%) of land owners.

46Copy pinpoint46. It is admitted position that the challenge to the acquisition of more than a thousand acres was made by a small fraction of land owners G having land less than 10% of the total acquisition. Compensation for rest of the 90% land acquired had been accepted by their respective land owners. The Division Bench has quashed the entire acquisition of more than a thousand acres at the instance of such a small fraction. This aspect has been dealt with by this Court in the case of Amarjit Singh H Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2010) 10 SCC 43 and Om Prakash

M/S. M.S.P.L. LIMITED v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA 637 AND ORS. [VIKRAM NATH, J.]

Vs. State of U.P. reported in (1998) 6 SCC1. The learned Single Judge A had placed reliance on the judgment of Om Prakash(supra). It is also worthwhile to mention that out of approx 110 acres of land acquires for MSPL, only one land owner possessing only 4.34 acres of land, had filed the writ appeal before the Division Bench. Quashing the entire acquisition at the instance of one land owner having 4.34 acres of land out of total B acquisition for MSPL of 110 acres, would be against the public policy and public interest. The MSPL alone provides employment to 292 persons with a substantial investment of Rs.200 crores. The employment to approximately 300 persons by MSPL is also alleged to be double of the number of employees as projected in the proposal. Further, in the case of AISL acquisition of 914 acres is challenged by a fraction of less than C 10% land owners. The estimated project of AISL is approx Rs.2092 crores and would employment to at least one thousand persons.

47Copy pinpoint47. In view of the above analysis, we are of the view that the Division Bench committed an error in quashing the acquisition proceedings. Accordingly, the appeals filed by MSPL, AISL, KIADB D and State of Karnataka are allowed.

48Copy pinpoint48. The judgment of the Division Bench dated 22.03.2012 is set aside and the writ petitions stand dismissed as ordered by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 17.03.2009.

49Copy pinpoint49. Insofar as the claim of Syed Ahmed is concerned, which is in E respect of similar acquisition for M/S BMM Ispat Ltd. on similar grounds based upon the judgment of the Division Bench dated 22.03.2012 impugned in the other appeals, deserves to be dismissed as we have already set aside the said judgment. Relevant to state here that Syed Ahmed was owner of 14.35 acres out of total land measuring 705.99 F acres acquired for M/S BMM Ispat Ltd., which is less than 2%. The appeal of Syed Ahmed is accordingly dismissed.

50Copy pinpoint50. There shall be no order as to costs.

51Copy pinpoint51. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. G Nidhi Jain Matters disposed of. (Assisted by : Tamana, LCRA)