Memorial On Behalf of Respondent

DES SHRI NAVALMAL FIRODIA LAW COLLEGE CLASS MOOT

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. ___________ of 2024

Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd …. Appellants

V/s

Mast Ram and Ors ....Respondents

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

(Akshat Bhat V BA. LLB. Roll No. 18)

Page 1 of 16
 Memorial On Behalf of Respondent

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................... 3

II. JURISDICTION .......................................................................................................... 5

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................... 6

IV. ISSUES .......................................................................................................................... 8

V. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................. 9

VI. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................... 10

Issue 1: Whether the prolonged delay in paying compensation to landowners, despite

extinguishment of ownership, amounts to a violation of Article 300A of the Constitution
of India, which guarantees the right to property: ........................................................... 10

Issue 2: Whether the State of Himachal Pradesh, having invoked urgency provisions
under Section 17(4) of the 1894 Land Acquisition Act, 1894, failed in its constitutional
obligation as a welfare State by not ensuring just, prompt, and effective compensation.
.............................................................................................................................................. 12

Issue 3: Whether the failure of the State to act promptly and proactively to protect
landowners’ rights, despite being aware of inter se disputes between corporate entities,
which amounts to an abdication of its duties under the constitutional scheme of eminent
domain: ............................................................................................................................... 14

VII. PRAYER ..................................................................................................................... 16

Page 2 of 16
 Memorial On Behalf of Respondent

I. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

# Abbreviation Meaning
1. Hob’ble Honourable
2. LAC Land Acquisition Collector
3. JAL Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.
4. MANU Manupatra
5. NCLT National Company Law Tribunal

Page 3 of 16
 Memorial On Behalf of Respondent

II. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. Statutes
1. Constitution of India
2. Land Acquisition Act, 1894
3. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013

B. Case Laws
1. Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah [MANU/SC/0450/2024]
2. Tukaram Kana Joshi v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation [(2013)
1SCC 353]
3. Kukreja Construction Company v. State of Maharashtra [MANU/SC/1016/2024]
4. Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2020) 2 SCC 569]
5. Rajiv Sarin v. State of Uttarakhand [(2011) 8 SCC 708]

Page 4 of 16
 Memorial On Behalf of Respondent

III. JURISDICTION

The Respondents respectfully submit that this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction under Article
136 of the Constitution of India, as the present matter arises from a judgment delivered by the
Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in a writ petition filed under Article 226.

The appeal raises substantial questions of constitutional importance, including:

1. The scope of Article 300A relating to the right to property and the obligation of the
State to ensure just and prompt compensation;
2. The constitutional validity of the invocation of urgency powers under Section 17(4) of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, without ensuring fair process;
3. The State’s failure to uphold its obligations under the doctrine of eminent domain and
its responsibilities as a welfare State.

The Respondents submit that this Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon these
questions, as they involve grave implications on the rights of citizens affected by State action
under the land acquisition regime.

Page 5 of 16
 Memorial On Behalf of Respondent

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Government of Himachal Pradesh issued a notification dated 25 July 2008 under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, declaring its intention to acquire 14.04
hectares and 17.56 ares of land located in Mauza Bhalag, Tehsil Arki, District Solan,
for the purpose of creating a safety zone around a mining area. The mining operations
were being carried out as part of the Jaypee Himachal Cement Project, a unit of M/s.
Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL).

2. The Government invoked the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the 1894 Act,
which eliminated the landowners' right to object under Section 5A. The justification
offered was that the land was vital to the safety of the mining project and could not be
used for residential or agricultural purposes.

3. Certain landowners, including Mast Ram and five others, objected to the acquisition,
and did not allow surveyors to evaluate the structures, trees, and crops on their land.
They subsequently filed writ petitions before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh,
challenging the acquisition primarily on the ground that the acquisition lacked a
genuine public purpose.

4. On 23 June 2016, the High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the acquisition
was for a public purpose, given that the land contained limestone, a critical raw material
for cement manufacturing.

5. Following the High Court’s decision, the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC), Arki
passed Award No. 1/2018 on 8 June 2018, fixing compensation at INR 10,77,00,000
(Rupees Ten Crores Seventy Seven Lakhs Only) crores. The LAC clarified that
compensation for houses, structures, and standing crops not assessed earlier would be
determined through a supplementary award.

6. In the interim, M/s. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) entered into a Scheme of
Arrangement with UltraTech Cement Ltd., for the transfer of its cement business. The
Scheme was approved by the NCLT, Mumbai and Allahabad Benches in February and
March 2017, with the Effective Date fixed as 29 June 2017. Pursuant to this, the cement
plant and operations were transferred to UltraTech Cement Ltd.; however, the subject
land was not included in the list of transferred assets under the Scheme.

Page 6 of 16
 Memorial On Behalf of Respondent

7. On 7 June 2019, the possession of the subject land was handed over to JAL, and the
land revenue records were mutated in JAL’s name on 12 November 2020. During this
period, several villagers, including the original landowners, had constructed houses and
cultivated the land.

8. On 16 September 2018, Mast Ram and others filed Writ Petition No. 2350/2018 before
the High Court, seeking a direction to the LAC to issue the supplementary award for
unassessed structures and crops. The High Court passed an order directing the LAC to
do so, and on 2 May 2022, the LAC passed the Supplementary Award, awarding an
additional amount of INR 3,05,31,095 (Rupees Three Crores Five Lakhs Thirty One
Thousand and Ninety Five Only).

9. The High Court later directed UltraTech Cement Ltd. to pay the supplementary
compensation in the first instance, with liberty to recover the amount from M/s.
Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL).

10. UltraTech Cement Ltd. challenged this direction before the Supreme Court of India,
contending that:

i. The subject land remained in JAL’s ownership, and UltraTech had no title
or control over it.
ii. The Scheme of Arrangement expressly stated that litigations and contingent
liabilities arising before 29 June 2017 would remain with JAL.
iii. The original compensation under Award No. 1/2018 was paid by JAL, not
UltraTech.

11. Meanwhile, JAL argued that the subject land formed part of the safety zone integral to
the cement project, which was now being operated by UltraTech. According to JAL,
the benefit of the land accrued to UltraTech, and therefore UltraTech should bear the
liability for compensation.

12. The State Government and Land Acquisition Collector took the position that their role
was limited to initiating acquisition proceedings and that the liability to pay
compensation rested with the company for whose benefit the land was acquired.

Page 7 of 16
 Memorial On Behalf of Respondent

V. ISSUES

1. Whether the prolonged delay in paying compensation to landowners, despite

extinguishment of ownership, amounts to a violation of Article 300A of the
Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to property.

2. Whether the State of Himachal Pradesh, having invoked urgency provisions under
Section 17(4) of the 1894 Land Acquisition Act, 1894, failed in its constitutional
obligation as a welfare State by not ensuring just, prompt, and effective compensation.

3. Whether the failure of the State to act promptly and proactively to protect landowners’
rights, despite being aware of inter se disputes between corporate entities, which
amounts to an abdication of its duties under the constitutional scheme of eminent
domain.

Page 8 of 16
 Memorial On Behalf of Respondent

VI. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue 1: Whether the prolonged delay in paying compensation to landowners, despite

extinguishment of ownership, amounts to a violation of Article 300A of the Constitution
of India, which guarantees the right to property:

Argument: The State's failure to pay full and timely compensation despite taking possession
of land violates the constitutional guarantee under Article 300A. The extinguishment of
ownership without effective recompense renders the acquisition illegal and unconstitutional.

Issue 2: Whether the State of Himachal Pradesh, having invoked urgency provisions
under Section 17(4) of the 1894 Land Acquisition Act, 1894, failed in its constitutional
obligation as a welfare State by not ensuring just, prompt, and effective compensation

Argument: Invoking Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, deprived landowners
of their right to object. This places a higher constitutional burden on the State to ensure justice
and timely compensation. The State failed to uphold this duty.

Issue 3: Whether the failure of the State to act promptly and proactively to protect
landowners’ rights, despite being aware of inter se disputes between corporate entities,
which amounts to an abdication of its duties under the constitutional scheme of eminent
domain:

Argument: The State’s inaction in resolving the corporate dispute between UltraTech and JAL,
despite knowing its effect on landowners, reflects an abdication of its constitutional duty under
the doctrine of eminent domain. The State cannot shift this burden to private parties.

Page 9 of 16
 Memorial On Behalf of Respondent

VII. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue 1: Whether the prolonged delay in paying compensation to landowners, despite

extinguishment of ownership, amounts to a violation of Article 300A of the
Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to property:

1. Right to property under Article 300A includes a right to timely and effective
compensation
1.1 The Counsel for Respondents most humbly argues that, Article 300A of the
Constitution mandates that no person shall be deprived of their property save by
authority of law. While no longer a fundamental right, the right to property remains
a valuable constitutional and legal right, and its deprivation is only permissible
through a just, fair, and lawful process.
1.2 In the present case, ownership of land was extinguished, and possession was handed
over as early as June 2019, yet a crucial component of compensation for structures,
trees, and standing crops was not determined until May 2022 i.e. nearly four years
later and remains unpaid. This delay, despite loss of ownership, amounts to a
constructive denial of compensation and directly undermines the protections under
Article 300A.
1.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar
Shah, emphasised that Article 300A carries with it the sub-rights to notice, hearing,
timely determination, and disbursement of compensation. Failure to honour these
sub-rights, particularly in compulsory acquisition, renders the process
unconstitutional.
2. Delay in compensation undermines the doctrine of eminent domain and the
principle of fairness
2.1 The Counsel for Respondents most humbly argues that, the doctrine of eminent
domain empowers the State to acquire private property for public use, but this
power is subject to the obligation of fair and prompt compensation. Acquisition
without full payment or delay in disbursement transforms this power into an
arbitrary and unjust act.
2.2 In Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, the Supreme Court held that non-payment of
compensation despite land being taken constitutes illegal dispossession. Likewise,
in Kukreja Construction Co. v. State of Maharashtra, the Court ruled that once

Page 10 of 16
 Memorial On Behalf of Respondent

compensation is determined, it must be disbursed immediately and not upon further

litigation or demand by the affected party.
2.3 In this case, the supplementary award, though passed in 2022, was the natural
continuation of the original award passed in 2018. The delay in both issuance and
payment violates the very essence of the acquisition process and the constitutional
right to property.
3. Absence of procedural compliance nullifies the ‘authority of law’ under Article
300A
3.1 The Counsel for Respondents most humbly argues that, the phrase “authority of
law” in Article 300A requires not just a statutory backing, but also compliance with
procedural safeguards. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (applicable through Section
24 of the 2013 Act) requires that full compensation be paid prior to taking
possession under Section 38.
3.2 In this case, land was taken over and mutated in favour of the acquiring company
without the complete compensation being determined or paid. This directly
contravenes both statutory and constitutional mandates, vitiating the acquisition
process.
4. The prolonged delay caused real and disproportionate hardship to the landowners
4.1 The Counsel for Respondents most humbly argues that, despite being dispossessed
of their land for a public project, the landowners were forced into prolonged
litigation merely to claim compensation that was acknowledged as due in the
original award itself. This delay defeated the very object of rehabilitation, exposing
them to economic and procedural injustice, in direct contradiction to the welfare
obligations of the State.

Therefore, the prolonged and unexplained delay in paying compensation, despite

extinguishment of title and possession, amounts to an unconstitutional deprivation
of property under Article 300A and must be held violative of the landowners’ rights
under the Constitution.

Page 11 of 16
 Memorial On Behalf of Respondent

Issue 2: Whether the State of Himachal Pradesh, having invoked urgency provisions
under Section 17(4) of the 1894 Land Acquisition Act, 1894, failed in its constitutional
obligation as a welfare State by not ensuring just, prompt, and effective compensation.

1. Invocation of Section 17(4) elevates the State's constitutional burden of fairness

1.1 The Counsel for Respondents most humbly argues that, Section 17(4) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 empowers the State to acquire land urgently, bypassing the
landowners' right to file objections under Section 5A. This procedural shortcut is
permissible only in rare and genuine emergencies. Once invoked, it places a
heightened constitutional burden on the State to ensure speedy, just, and complete
compensation, since landowners are denied the opportunity to be heard.
1.2 In the present case, the State invoked Section 17(4) citing urgency to create a safety
zone around a mining project. However, despite taking possession, the State failed
to promptly determine and disburse the full compensation, especially for houses,
trees, and standing crops.
2. The State’s failure undermines the ethos of a welfare State
2.1 The Counsel for Respondents most humbly argues that, as per the Preamble and
Directive Principles of State Policy, India is committed to functioning as a welfare
State, which includes protecting vulnerable citizens from exploitation or arbitrary
State action. The State’s conduct in this case, displacing landowners and failing to
compensate them, directly contradicts this constitutional vision.
2.2 In Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, the Supreme Court emphasised that in a welfare
State, State authorities cannot take advantage of procedural gaps to delay or deny
compensation. Similarly, in Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Court
observed that State must act as a model litigant and protect rather than violate
citizen rights.
3. The urgency clause cannot become a license for prolonged non-payment
3.1 The Counsel for Respondents most humbly argues that, Section 17(4) was intended
to allow swifter acquisition in public interest, but not at the cost of constitutional
obligations. When land is taken without a hearing, compensation becomes the only
lifeline of justice for the affected parties. A delay of several years, as seen in the
present case, renders the invocation of urgency oppressive and arbitrary.

Page 12 of 16
 Memorial On Behalf of Respondent

3.2 In the case of Kukreja Construction Co., the Court made it clear that invoking
urgency does not excuse the State from compensating landowners before taking
possession, and certainly not after several years have passed.
4. The conduct of the State reflects abdication of constitutional responsibility
4.1 The Counsel for Respondents most humbly argues that, the prolonged silence and
inaction of the State after initiating acquisition proceedings, especially when
disputes between JAL and UltraTech arose, shows a lack of concern for the rights
of the landowners and the citizens of the State. The State could have intervened to
ensure compensation was paid or released interim amounts but chose not to act.
4.2 Such abdication of responsibility contradicts the principles of constitutional
governance, public trust, and the rule of law, which require the State to act in good
faith and in service of its citizens, not merely as a facilitator for corporate projects.

Therefore, having invoked the urgency clause under Section 17(4), the State was
duty-bound to compensate the landowners justly and promptly. Its failure to do so
reflects a breach of its role as a welfare State and renders the acquisition process
constitutionally suspect and procedurally flawed.

Page 13 of 16
 Memorial On Behalf of Respondent

Issue 3: Whether the failure of the State to act promptly and proactively to protect
landowners’ rights, despite being aware of inter se disputes between corporate
entities, which amounts to an abdication of its duties under the constitutional scheme
of eminent domain:

1. The constitutional scheme of eminent domain binds the State, not private parties
1.1 The Counsel for Respondents most humbly argues that, under the Indian
constitutional framework, the power to acquire land for public purposes is vested in
the State through the doctrine of eminent domain. This power carries with it an
inalienable duty to ensure that those whose land is taken are compensated in full,
fairly, and promptly. This obligation cannot be shifted or delegated to private
parties.
1.2 In the present case, the State allowed disputes between Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.
(JAL) and UltraTech Cement Ltd. to linger and affect the rights of the landowners.
It remained passive despite full knowledge that compensation under the
supplementary award remained unpaid and that the acquiring company’s successor
disclaimed liability.
2. Failure to intervene resulted in denial of justice to the landowners
2.1 The Counsel for Respondents most humbly argues that, the landowners were left in
a legal limbo due to corporate wrangling. The State did not exercise its sovereign
function to resolve the compensation issue or disburse amounts from the
Consolidated Fund of the State, recoverable later from the concerned company.
2.2 In Rajiv Sarin v. State of Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court held that the State cannot
deprive a person of property without ensuring payment of compensation,
irrespective of procedural or institutional complications.
3. The State failed in its obligation to act as a neutral protector of citizen rights
3.1 The Counsel for Respondents most humbly argues that, the role of the State under
Article 300A is not merely to notify and process acquisition, but to act as a
constitutional buffer between powerful entities and vulnerable citizens. The State’s
choice to let the landowners pursue compensation from UltraTech or JAL, when
both disclaimed responsibility, reflects a clear abdication of that constitutional
function.

Page 14 of 16
 Memorial On Behalf of Respondent

3.2 In Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Court held that the State must act
with a sense of fairness and active concern for the citizen's plight, especially in land
acquisition cases.
4. Constitutional governance demands accountability despite private arrangements
4.1 The Counsel for Respondents most humbly argues that, even if private contractual
arrangements between JAL and UltraTech excluded liability for post-cutoff claims,
the constitutional obligation to ensure compensation lay with the State. The burden
could be shifted internally, but the landowners could not be made to suffer for a
commercial restructuring that was never disclosed to them or reflected in the
acquisition records.

Therefore, the State’s inaction in the face of inter se disputes between private entities
amounts to an abdication of its constitutional duties under the scheme of eminent
domain. The State cannot remain a silent observer while landowners’ rights are
eroded by corporate conflict.

Page 15 of 16
 Memorial On Behalf of Respondent

VIII. PRAYER

In light of the foregoing submissions, the Respondents most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to:

1. Dismiss the present appeal filed by UltraTech Cement Ltd. as devoid of merit and
uphold the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh.

2. Affirm the rights of the Respondents under Article 300A of the Constitution by holding
that the prolonged non-payment of full compensation amounts to unconstitutional
deprivation of property.

3. Declare the invocation of urgency powers under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, without ensuring just and prompt compensation, as violative of the
constitutional mandate and obligations of a welfare State.

4. Direct the State of Himachal Pradesh to ensure immediate disbursement of the

outstanding compensation amounts due to the Respondents in accordance with the
supplementary award dated 2 May 2022.

AND/OR

Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
interest of justice, equity, and good conscience.

And for this act of kindness, the Respondents shall, as in duty bound, ever pray.

S/d.

Advocate for Respondent

Page 16 of 16