Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. I.A.4/13 has been filed by the respondents-2 and 3 to implead PWD as party to the proceedings. It is stated that PWD is a nodal agency and it has filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court stating that excess of land has been handed over without specifying the details and unless PWD demarcates the excess of land, it is difficult to take further action. Therefore, PWD is a necessary party to the proceedings and it may be impleaded.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that land has been acquired for BMIC project and challenge to the acquisition proceedings has come to an end and possession of the land has been handed over and road has been formed. The petitioners have deposited a huge sum of Rs.213 Crores towards compensation. In spite of that, without any valid reason, the respondents have failed to pass the awards. Therefore, the respondents may be directed to pass the awards. Placing reliance on the decisions reported in (1980) 3 SCC Page 233- HIMALAYAN TILES & MARBLE PRIVATE LIMTED vs FRANCIS VICTOR COUTINHO, reported in (1990) 3 SCC page 617 NEELANGANGABAI & ANOTHER vs STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS, reported in (1994)6 SCC page 74 N KRISHNAMACHARI vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC, HYDERABAD & OTHERS, reported in (1995)1 SCC page 221 NEYVELY LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED vs SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) and reported in (2011)2 SCC page 54 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs BHOLA NATH SHARMA & OTHERS, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners being beneficiaries are interested persons and they can maintain the writ petitions.

(2) Whether the respondents-3 & 4 can to be directed to pass the awards?

POINT NO. 1:

19. I.A.Nos.1/2013, 2/2013 & 3/2013 have been filed by the applicants who are the land owners to implead them as parties to the proceedings. I.A.No.4/2013 has been filed by the respondents 2 and 3 to implead PWD as party to the proceedings. The applicant in I.A.No.1/2013 is the owner of Sy.No.64/1 measuring 3 acres 1 gunta of Gottigere village. The applicant in I.A.No.2/2013 is the owner of Sy.No.44/1 measuring 2 acres 23 guntas of Madavara village. The applicant in I.A.No.3/2013 is the owner of Sy.No.34/3 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas of Doddathogur village. The lands of the applicants have been acquired for BMIC project. Possession has been handed over. The applicant in I.A.No.1/2013 has preferred Civil Appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.761/2013. However, there is no stay or any other interim order restraining not to pass any award. The land has been acquired and acquisition proceedings have been upheld and there is no stay restraining not to pass any award. Therefore, in our considered view, the presence of the applicants is not required to consider the relief claimed in the writ petitions. Therefore, I.A.Nos.1/2013, 2/2013 & 3 /2013 are hereby rejected. Similarly, PWD is not a necessary party to the proceedings. Accordingly, I.A.No.4/2013 is hereby rejected.

POINT NO.2:

20. Insofar as the question as to whether the respondents-3 & 4 can to be directed to pass the awards is concerned, it is not in dispute that 344 acres of land mentioned in Annexure-A has been acquired for BMIC project. It is also not in dispute that possession of the land has been handed over to the petitioners. The acquisition proceedings have been concluded upto the Apex Court.

21. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that Secretary, PWD department has filed an affidavit before the Hon'ble Supreme Court stating that excess of land has been handed over. The contention regarding excess of land has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.NAGABHUSHANA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in 2011(3) SCC page 408. Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:

Considering this provision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the person interested includes beneficiaries of acquisition also. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that the beneficiaries are not interested persons and they cannot maintain the writ petitions. The land has been acquired for BMIC project. The petitioners are the beneficiaries. They have to pay the compensation, acquisition expenses and interest for the delayed period. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the writ petitions. Accordingly, it is rejected.