Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

A Division Bench of this Court of two Judges in Himalayan Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd. v. Francis Victor Coutinho (dead) by Lrs. & Others, [1980] 3 SCR 235 examined the question of 'person interested' under the land acquisition proceedings in detail and categorically held that the appellant Himalayan Tiles & Marbles being a private company for which the land was acquired was undoubtedly 'a person interested' as contemplated by Section 18 (1) of the Act. It was held that the definition of 'a person interested' given in Section 18 is an inclusive definition and must be liberally construed so as to embrace all persons who may be directly or indirectly interested either in the title to the land or in the quantum of compensation. It was further held that the lands were actually acquired for the purpose of the Company and once the land vested in the Government after acquisition, it stood transferred to the Company under the agreement entered into between the Company and the Government. Thus, it cannot be said that the Company had no claim or title to the land at all. Secondly, since under the agreement the Company had to pay the compensation, it was most certainly interested in seeing that a proper quantum of compensation was fixed so that the company may not have to pay a very heavy amount of money. This Court categorically held that the view taken by the Orrisa High Court or even by the Calcutta High Court that a company, local authority or a person for whose benefit the land is acquired is not an interested person is not correct. In the above case this Court further held that the preponderance of judicial opinion seems to favour the view that the definition of person interested must be liberally construed so as to include a body, local authority, or a company for whose benefit the land is acquired and who is bound under an agreement to pay the compensation. This view accords with the principles of equity, justice and good conscience. It may be further important to note that this Court in the above case approved the case of Punjab & Haryana High Court in The Hindustan Sanitaryware and Industries Ltd. Bahadurgarh & Anr. v. The State of Harayana & Ors., AIR 1972 Punjab & Haryana 59.

The point came up for consideration before a Full Bench of three Judges of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Indo Swiss Time Limited (supra). S.S. Sandhawalia, CJ, followed the view taken in Himnalayan Tiles & Marbles's case (supra) and did not follow the view of this Court in The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahemdabad's case (supra). Sandhawalia, CJ, held that in the case of The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahemdabad, a short order was passed upholding a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the appeal. In that case their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahemdabad for whose benefit the land had been acquired could not maintain an appeal in the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court setting aside that Notification. It is evident from the brief order that the matter was disposed of at the very threshold without any elaborate reference to either principle or by diverting to any authority. The appeal was held to be not maintainable on the short ground that their Lordships failed to see what interest the Municipality had which would sustain an appeal by it against the order of the High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the land owners. Sandhawalia, CJ, as such held that a company for whose benefit the land is acquired, can be impleaded as a party in the Court of the District Judge, in a reference preferred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It was further held that there was no conflict or inconsistency between Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 50(2) of the Act. The two provisions can be construed harmoniously and the provisions of Order 1 rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code would apply within the confines of Section 50 (2) and the petitioner company (Indo Swiss Time Ltd.) was entitled to be impleaded as a party thereunder. On the other hand P.C. Jain and J.M. Tandon, JJ holding a majority view followed the view propounded in the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahemdabad's case (supra) and did not agree with the view enunciated in Himalayan Tiles & Marbles's case (supra). The majority view wag that an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for being impleaded as a party by the company is not legally maintainable. The company is not an interested person so as to give it a right to become a party to the proceedings in reference before the District Judge. The only right under the Act available to the company is to appear and adduce evidence for the determination of the amount of compensation and the company by itself would have no right to file an appeal. It was also held that when a company has no right to file an appeal then a fortiori, it follows that an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code by a company to become a party in the proceedings would not be maintainable, because once an application for becoming a party is allowed and a company is made a party then the company would have a right to file an appeal. The only right given to a company under Section 50(2) of the Act is to appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determination of the amount of compensation and for the exercise of that right, it is not necessary nor is there any provision in the Act which may entitle the Company to ask for being impleaded as a party under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. Before a Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court consisting of S.S. Sandhawalia, CJ, P.C. Jain and S.C. Mittal, JJ. in M/s. Kulbhushan Kumar & Company, Ahmadgarh, Petitioner v. State of Punjab and another respondent, AIR 1984 Punjab and Haryana 55, the question again came up for consideration whether the ratio in the Full Bench Judgment of Indo Swiss Time Ltd.'s case (supra) still held the field or not. The question arose because of a short observation of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in special leave petition No. 5389 of 1981 (Punjab United Pesticides and Chemicals Ltd. v. Puran Singh) decided on January 11, 1982. In that case Supreme Court had affirmed the earlier judgment in Himalayan Tiles & Marbles's case (supra). The Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the above case of M/s Kulbhushan Kumar & Company held that in the Punjab United Pesticides and Chemicals Limited's case (supra), the special leave petition and the appeal were directed against an order in limine of dismissal by a Letters Patent Bench of the High Court, the correctness or otherwise of the Full Bench decision in lndo Swiss Time Limited's case was not even remotely canvassed before the Supreme Court. It was held that it is well-settled that a Full Bench Judgment could not be presumed to have been expressly overruled, which far from being considered had not been even referred to by the superior Court. It was thus held that the order of their Lordships in Punjab United Pesticides and Chemicals Limited's case (supra) did not overrule either expressly or impliedly the Indo Swiss Time Limited's case. It was also highlighted that a special leave petition against the Full Bench judgment in Indo Swiss Time Limited's case (supra) was decided by the Supreme Court on the basis of a compromise. A short order recorded in that special leave petition was in the following terms : -

In the case in hand before us, it is an admitted position that the State of Haryana acquired the land in District Gurgaon for the benefit of National Security Guard as desired by the Union of India. The land owners including the respondents of the present case filed reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act. During the pendency of the reference application before the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, an application was moved by the Union of India through Deputy Inspector General, National Security Guard for being impleaded as respondents on the ground that the land had-been acquired for the purpose of National Security Guard. It was submitted in the application that the interest of the applicant Union of India will adversely suffer in case the rate of compensation was enhanced and it would also be deprived of an opportunity to file an appeal in case Union of India is not impleaded as a party. The Additional District Judge declined to implead the Union of India as a party. A revision application was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order dated 24.5.1989. The High Court in the impugned order took the view that the matter stands concluded by the Full Bench judgment in the case of M/s Kulbhushan Kumar & Company's case (supra). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have thoroughly perused the record. It was contended on behalf of the appellant Union of India that the Central Government is neither a company nor a firm and as such the Full Bench judgment of the High Court relied upon in the impugned order has no application in the instant case. The Central Government has no machinery of its own for acquiring of land and as such it had to depend upon the State Government for the above purpose. However, the financial implication with regard to the payment of compensation is to be borne by the Central Government. It was contended that the point is fully covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Himalayan Tiles & Marbles (supra). It was also submitted that in the meantime the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon by its order dated 17.1.1990 has decided the reference and has enhanced the compensation. It was submitted that a great injustice has been done to the appel- lant as it has not been given an opportunity to contest the order of enhanced compensation and in view of the fact that its application for impleadment has been dismissed, it has been left with no remedy of filing an appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, enhancing the compensation. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the respondent land owners that the learned Single Judge of the High Court passing the impugned order dated 24.5.1989 was bound by the Full Bench decisions of the said Court and there was no infirmity in taking such view. It was further contended that even if there was a conflict between the two decisions of this Court in The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Chandulal Shamaldas Patel & Ors. and in Himalayan Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd.'s case, both by a Division Bench comprising of two Hon'ble Judges, the conflict can only be resolved by referring the case to a larger Bench of this Court.

In Himalayan Tiles & Marbles's case (supra), the appellant, a private company was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of artificial marbles and tiles. In or about 1957 the company moved the Government for acquiring additional land for purposes of the company and the Govern- ment on January 7, 1958 issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was followed by a separate notice by the Land Acquisition Officer acquiring the land in dispute. This was followed by another notification under Section 6 of the Act which was served on the respondent on January 25, 1960. The purpose of the acquisition was mentioned in the Notification, as "public purposes for which the land is needed for Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd." The acquisition proceedings culminated in an award made under Section 12 of the Act on April 11, 1961, which was published in the State Gazette on April 18, 1961. On December 11, 1961 a letter was written on behalf of the Government informing the owner of the acquired land that possession would be taken on or about the 12th of January, 1962. The first respondent in his writ petition to the High Court, contended that the Government was not competent to acquire the land for purposes of a private company which could not be said to be a public purpose under Section 4 of the Act and prayed that the entire land acquisition proceedings should be quashed. A single Judge of the High Court accepted the plea, allowed the writ petition and quashed the land acquisition proceedings along with the notifications. The appellant filed an appeal before the Letters Patent Bench which confirmed the view of the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant had no locus standi to file the appeal, as it was not 'a person interested' within the meaning of Section 18 (1) of the Act. The Himalayan Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd. came in appeal to this Court by grant of special leave. The Court in this case examined the question elaborately with reference to the relevant provisions of the Act including Section 18 and the entire case law on the point. It was clearly held that the definition of 'a person interested' given in Section 18 is an inclusive definition and must be liberally construed so as to embrace all persons who may be directly or indirectly interested either in the title to the land or in the quantum of compensation. It was observed that since under the agreement the company had to pay the compensation, it was most certainly interested in seeing that a proper quantum of compensation was fixed so that the company may not have to pay a very heavy amount of money. After examining the various case law on the subject, it was observed that the preponderance of judicial opinion seems to favour the view that the definition of person interested must be liberally construed so as to include a body, local authority or a company for whose benefit the land is acquired and who is bound under an agreement to pay the compensation. In their Lordships opinion this view accorded with the principles of equity, justice and good conscience. It may be further noted that the above decision in Himalayan Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd.'s case was given on March 28, 1980 and has been consistently followed by this Court as already mentioned above in the cases of Neelagangabai & Another (supra) and Krishi (Jpaj Mandi Samiti (supra) decided on May 3, 1990 and March 25, 1991 respectively. No decision was brought to our notice by the learned counsel taking a contrary view after the decision in Himalayan Tiles & Marbles's case. Even in the case of Indo Swiss Time Limited, S.S. Sandhawalia, CJ., had followed the judgment in the Himalayan Tiles & Marbles case and had rightly distinguished the case of The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad The majority view in the above case which followed the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad is held to be wrong. So far as later Full Bench of the Punjab & Harayana High Court in M/s. kulbhushan Kumar & Company's case (supra) is concerned, it had followed its earlier decision in Indo Swiss time Limited's case and as such while approving the minority view of S.S. Sandhawalia, CJ., we overruled both the above Full Bench decisions of the Punjab & Haryana High Court being contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Himalayan Tiles & Marbles's case (supra).