Bombay High Court
Union Of India New Delhi vs Smt Premlata Purushottam Paldiwal And ... on 21 September, 2016
Author: Z.A. Haq
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 fa716.96
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.716 OF 1996
Union of India,
through its Secretary,
Ministry of Defence, Delhi. .... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1) Smt. Premlata w/o Purushottam Paldiwal,
Aged about 46 years,
Landlady and Housewife,
C/o. Paldiwal Nursing Home, Giripeth,
Nagpur.
2) State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Nagpur.
3) Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition
Officer (General), Nagpur. .... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Smt. Anjali Joshi, Advocate for the appellant,
Shri V.V. Bhangde, Advocate for the respondent No.1,
Shri S.B. Bissa, A.G.P. for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATED : 21
SEPTEMBER, 2016.
st
::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:04:45 :::
2 fa716.96
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard Smt. Anjali Joshi, Advocate for the appellant, Shri V.V. Bhangde, Advocate for the respondent No.1/claimant and Shri S.B. Bissa, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.2 and
3.
2. The claimant had filed application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 impleading the present appellant/Union of India as non-applicant No.3, the description being as follows :
'Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, C/o Chief Construction Engineer, Defence of India, Research and Development, Organisation Project, Rani Kothi, Opposite Reserve Bank of India Quarters, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440001.' The reference Court passed award on 10-09-1996 recording that the non-applicants including the present appellant had neither filed written statement nor had attended the proceedings till the proceedings were closed for judgment. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the award passed by the reference Court. One of the ground raised by the appellant is that the reference Court has committed an error in assuming that the summons of the proceedings ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:04:45 :::
3 fa716.96 was served on the appellant. According to the appellant, the description of the appellant in the cause title of the proceedings filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not correct, that the office of Chief Construction Engineer was at Secunderabad and not at Nagpur as described in the proceedings before the reference Court and the alleged service of summons on the office of the Chief Construction Engineer at Nagpur could not have been treated as valid service. It is submitted that because of the wrong description of the appellant in the reference proceedings and the error committed by the reference Court in assuming that the summons of the proceedings was served on the appellant, the appellant is deprived of the opportunity of defending the proceedings, leading evidence and cross-examining the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimant. It is argued that the appellant (acquiring body) is not given opportunity to defend as it was not served with the summons of the proceedings and therefore the impugned award has to be set aside. To support the submissions, reliance is placed on the judgment given in the case of NTPC Ltd. v.
State of Bihar and others reported in (2004) 12 SCC 96 and in the case of Abdul Rasak and others vs. Kerala Water Authority and others reported in (2002) 3 SCC 228.
::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:04:45 :::4 fa716.96
3. The learned Advocate for the claimant has submitted that the appellant has not been able to establish that the office of Chief Construction Engineer at Nagpur was not competent to accept the summons. It is submitted that if it was so, either the office of Chief Construction Engineer at Nagpur should not have accepted the summons or after accepting summons, it should have intimated to the Court that the summons was wrongly accepted byit.
It is argued that the facts on record show that the office of Chief Construction Engineer at Nagpur has taken all the steps for acquisition of the land and all consequential steps for deposit of the amount in the reference Court and the Collector had also sent the notice of reference proceedings to the office of Chief Construction Engineer at Nagpur. It is submitted that in these facts, it is clear that the summons of the proceedings was properly served on the office of the Chief Construction Engineer at Nagpur and the reference Court has not committed any error in proceeding with the matter under the belief that the present appellant was served with the summons of proceedings. The learned Advocate has submitted that if the matter is remanded, it would now not be possible for the claimant to produce the witnesses (7 in numbers), which were examined on behalf of the ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:04:45 ::: 5 fa716.96 claimant. Alternatively it is submitted that if at all the matter is to be remitted to enable the appellant to defend itself, the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimant should not be excluded if they fail to attend the proceedings. For this submission, the learned Advocate has relied on paragraph No.12 of the judgment given in the case of NTPC Ltd. v. State of Bihar and others. It is submitted that the amount deposited before the reference Court is withdrawn by the appellant and if the matter is remanded, then the claimant should be permitted to retain the amount and for that the claimant will abide by the conditions as may be imposed by this Court.
4. After hearing, the following points arise for consideration :
i) Whether the reference Court has committed an error in proceeding against the appellant assuming that the summons of proceedings was served on the appellant ?
ii) Whether the impugned award is proper or is required to be interfered with ?
5. The claimant has impleaded Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Defence as the non-applicant No.3 in the reference proceedings. The address is given as "C/o Chief Construction ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:04:45 ::: 6 fa716.96 Engineer, Defence of India, Research and Development, Organisation Project, Rani Kothi, Opposite Reserve Bank of India Quarters, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440001". Considering the description of Union of India/non-applicant No.3 in the reference proceedings, the summons of the proceedings should have been served on the Secretary, Ministry of Defence. It is undisputed that the summons was not served on the Secretary, Ministry of Defence. The reference Court committed an error in concluding that the summons of the proceedings was served on the Union of India. The service of summons on the Chief Construction Engineer at Nagpur or any one from his office cannot be said to be a valid service as the non-applicant in the reference proceedings was Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Defence.
6. The averments in paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the memorandum of appeal show that the Additional Chief Construction Engineer at Nagpur office had informed by the letter dated 12-02-1996 that the summons was received and then steps were taken on behalf of the appellant, however, by the time the appellant could put in appearance before the reference Court, the matter was closed for judgment. It is stated that an application praying for setting aside ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:04:45 ::: 7 fa716.96 ex-parte order was also filed which was rejected.
In the above facts, it cannot be said that there is any lapse on the part of the present appellant in attending the proceedings before the reference Court.
7. In view of the above, in my view, the award passed by the reference Court is required to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted to the reference Court for deciding the proceedings, afresh.
8. Hence, the following order :
i) The impugned award is set aside.
ii) The reference Court shall decide the proceedings, afresh,
permitting the parties to file pleadings, amend pleadings, file documents, examine witnesses and cross-examine the witnesses.
iii) The representative of the appellant, the respondent No.1/claimant and the representatives of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall appear before the learned 6 th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur on 26-10-2016 at 11-00 a.m. and abide by the further orders.
::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:04:45 :::8 fa716.96
iv) The decision on the point whether the evidence of witnesses (7 in numbers) examined on behalf of the claimant should be considered or excluded if they fail to appear for cross-examination, shall be taken by the reference Court after considering the relevant aspects i.e. what steps are taken by the concerned party to produce those witnesses.
v) As the matter is old, the reference Court shall dispose the proceedings within four months.
vi) The orders passed by this Court on 09-07-1997 and 14-08-1997 show that the claimant was permitted to withdraw the amount on furnishing bank guarantee for withdrawing the amount of Rs.35,00,000/- and solvent security for withdrawing the balance amount. In the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal on 19-02-1998 it is recorded that the claimant has withdrawn the amount on furnishing bank guarantee for withdrawal of Rs.35,00,000/- and solvent security for withdrawing the balance amount.
The claimant is permitted to retain the amount on renewing the bank guarantee and solvent security ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:04:45 ::: 9 fa716.96 regularly till the disposal of the reference. The claimant shall also file an undertaking before the reference Court stating that if the reference Court finds that the claimant is not entitled for the amount withdrawn by her, the claimant will redeposit the amount alongwith interest as may be determined by the reference Court within two months. The undertaking shall be filed till the date of appearance. If the undertaking is not filed, the Executing Court shall take steps to recover the amount from the claimant.
The appeal is allowed in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE adgokar ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:04:45 ::: 10 fa716.96 CERTIFICATE I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment.
Uploaded by : P.M. Adgokar. Uploaded on : 26-09-2016.
P.A. to Hon'ble Judge.
::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:04:45 :::