New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday asked Patna High Court to reconsider a matter related to cancellation of allotment of land to film producer and director Prakash Jha for setting up multiplexes in Bihar.
A bench headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat remanded the matter back to the High Court asking it to reconsider the matter and decide the issue within four months.
Jha in his petition filed through his company Holy Cow Pvt Ltd against senior Congress leader Prem Chandra Mishra, the Bihar government, the Bihar Industrial Area Development and others had sought stay on the High Court's order describing it as illegal and wrong. The High Court had also directed the government to repossess the land already given to Jha.
The Nitish Kumar government had allotted the land to Jha for constructing six multiplexes. The apex court directed the High Court to consider the matter afresh and decide whether the land has been allotted illegally.
The petitioner had contended before the apex court that the PIL filed in the High Court was politically motivated and land had been alloted in accordance with the law for public purpose. The petitioner also denied the allegation that the land had been alloted at a throw-away price.
According to Jha, the repossession of land amounted to taking away his vested right in respect of such lands, particularly when he had made investments to the tune of Rs three crore.
He further alleged the High Court was not justified in setting aside the government's decision when the latter was acting within its powers for promoting industrial activity in the state. he said the government had given various incentives to multiplexes, including exemption from entertainment tax so as to give a fillip to the sagging film industry in the state.
Jha who hails from village Baraharwa, while arguing that the High Court's finding was "totally wrong and unsustainable" and against the records of BIADA, said he had applied for land at nine different places but was allotted land only at seven places in different districts of the state.
Comments
0 comment