Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Notification issued under s.4 for acquiring land for public purpose for setting up the Satellite Township for Burdwan Town at public expenses – After the declaration was published under s.6, an unregistered MoA was executed by the BDA with Bengal Shrachi who was chosen in a bid process amongst some other companies for development of lands acquired under a public private partnership – Land acquisition collector declared award – The said amount was paid by BDA – Thereafter, the state government took over possession of the lands from the farmers and handed it over to BDA and BDA handed it over to Bengal Shrachi – In the meantime, at the instance of the landowners, references were successfully made to reference court wherein compensation was enhanced from Rs.5.8 lacs to Rs.35 lacs – Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and order passed by the Reference Court, at the instance of the BDA, four appeals are pending before the High Court – Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, the appellant Shrachi Burdwan filed a Writ Petition before the High Court challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court enhancing the amount of compensation – Maintainability of writ petition – Held: Appellant was not a party to the Reference proceedings – The locus of the appellant was seriously disputed on behalf of the landowners/claimants and it was seriously disputed whether the appellant can be said to be a ‘person interested’ within the definition of s.3(b) of the LA Act – In the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly when the locus of the appellant to challenge the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is seriously disputed and whether the appellant can be said to be a ‘person interested’ within the definition of s.3(b) of the LA Act and thereby the appellant can challenge the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court enhancing the compensation are all disputed questions of facts and are all contentious issues, High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Art.226 and ought not to have set aside the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court enhancing the amount of compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act – The remedy available to the appellant would have been to prefer appeal before the High Court with application for leave to appeal.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: The appellant Shrachi Burdwan was not a party to the Reference proceedings. The locus of the appellant – Shrachi Burdwan has been seriously disputed on behalf of the landowners/claimants and it is seriously disputed whether the appellant Shrachi Burdwan can be said to be a ‘person interested’ within the definition of Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act. As such out of 24 Reference cases, before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012, the appellant restricted the prayer with respect to only four respondents namely 6, 16, 17 and 25 in the writ petition. At the instance of the BDA four appeals challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court are pending before the High Court. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly when the locus of the appellant, Shrachi Burdwan to challenge the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is seriously disputed and whether the appellant, Shrachi Burdwan can be said to be a ‘person interested’ within the definition of Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act and thereby the appellant can challenge the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court enhancing the compensation are all disputed questions of facts and are all contentious issues, we are of the opinion that Single Judge of the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and ought not to have set aside the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court enhancing the amount of compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The remedy available to the appellant would have been to prefer appeal before the High Court with application for leave to appeal. [Para 8][935-E-H; 936A-C] N. P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal Salem District and Four Others, AIR 1952 SC 64 : [1952] SCR 218; State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh, [1958] SCR 595; Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 1 : [1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 359; Harbanslal Sahnia and Anr. v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 107; Neyvely Lignite
Corporation Ltd. v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Neyvely and Ors., (1995) 1 SCC 221 : [1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 567; U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (Dead) by LRs. And Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 326 : [1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 646; Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Anr., (2015) 10 SCC 469 : [2015] 9 SCR 498; Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2017) 4 SCC 760 : [2017] 1 SCR 767; Hindu Kanya Maha Vidyalaya, Jind and Anr. v. Municipal Committee, Jind and Ors., (1988) Suppl. SCC 719; Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. v. Francis Victor Countinho (Dead) by LRs., (1980) 3 SCC 223 : [1980]
3 SCR 235; Neelagangabai and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 1321 : [1990] 3 SCR 20 - referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.