Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Provided that no such local authority or Company shall be entitled to demand a reference under Section 18."

Sub-section (2) of Section 50 enables a local authority to appear in any acquisition proceeding at the stage of determination of compensation before the Collector or the reference court and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. The object underlying the aforesaid provision appears to be to safeguard the interests of the local authority who would be required to pay the amount of compensation that would be determined by the Collector or by the Reference Court by enabling it to adduce evidence having a bearing on the amount of compensation before the Collector or the Court and thereby assist them in making a fair determination. Such protection was necessary because in the matter of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act a local authority for whom the land is acquired does not stand on the same footing as the Government. While making the award the Collector acts as an agent of the Government and functions under its administrative control. Prior to the insertion of the Proviso in sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the L.A. Act by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, there were administrative instructions requiring preliminary valuation by the Collector of the land being acquired and if the Collector found that the eventual award would substantially exceed the provisional valuation he was required to obtain further instructions from the higher authorities. Now the proviso inserted in sub- section (1) of Section 11 by the Amendment Act of 1984 lays down the statutory requirement that no award shall be made by the Collector without previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorize in this behalf. There is no similar provision requiring the approval of the local authority. Sub-section (2) of Section 50 is the only provision which affords a certain degree of protection to it in the matter of determination of the amount of compensation by the Collector as well as the Reference Court. Keeping these considerations in view we are of the opinion that sub-section (2) of Section 50 must be construed as conferring a right on the local authority for whom the land is being acquired to participate in the acquisition proceedings at the stage of determination of the amount of compensation before the Collector as well as the reference court.

(i) No notice was given to the local authority under sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the L.A. Act and as a result the local authority could not appear before the Collector to adduce evidence;
(ii) Notice was served on the local authority and in response to said notice the local authority appeared before the Collector; and
(iii) Notice was served on the local authority but inspite of service of such notice the local authority failed to appear and adduce evidence before the Collector.

In a case where no notice is given to the local authority the position of the local authority is not different from that of the Municipal Corporation in Neelgangabai & Anr. v. State of Kamataka, (supra). In that case there was an express provision in section 20 of L.A. Act as modified by Land Acquisition (Mysore Extention Amendment) Act, 1961 providing for service of notice on the person or local authority for whom the acquisition is made. On a construction of Section 50(2) we have found that service of such a notice is implicit in the right conferred under Section 50(2) of the L.A. Act, Since the failure to give a notice would result in denial of the right conferred on the local authority under Section 50(2) it would be open to the local authority to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the award made by the Collector as was done in Neelgangabai case (supra). In a case where notice has been served on the local authority and it has appeared before the Collector the local authority may feel aggrieved on account of it being denied opportunity to adduce evidence or the evidence adduced by it having not been considered by the Collector while making the award or the award being vitiated by malafides. Since the amount of the compensation is to be paid by the local authority and it has an interest in the determination of the said amount, which has been given recognition in Section 50(2) of the L.A. Act, the local authority would be a person aggrieved who can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to assail the award in spite of the proviso precluding the local authority from seeking a reference. Such a challenge will, however, be limited to the grounds on which judicial review is permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution. In a case where the local authority has failed to appear inspite of service of notice the local authority can have no cause for grievance. Even in such a case it may be permissible for the local authority to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to assail the award if it is vitated by malafides or is perverse.

We may now come to the stage of the proceedings before the court in a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act made at the instance of a person having interest in the land being acquired. At this stage also Section 50(2) of the L.A. Act envisages that the local authority has a right to appear and adduce evidence before the Court. This right is independent of the right that is available to the local authority to appear and adduce evidence before the Collector. Even though the local authority had failed to appear before the Collector inspite of notice or had appeared in response to notice and had adduced evidence the local authority may consider it necessary to adduce evidence to rebut the evidence adduced by the person who has sought the reference and to defend the award made by the Collector. Failure to give notice at this stage would result in denial of the said right of the local authority. Before we consider the remedy that is available for seeking redress against the denial of this right we may examine whether the local authority has a right to be impleaded as a party in the proceedings before the reference court. That raises the question whether the local authority can be regarded as a necessary or a proper party. The law is well settled that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively and a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision of the question involved in the proceeding. (See: Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, [1963] Supp. 1 SCR 676, at p. 681. A local authority for whom land is being acquired has a right to participate in the acquisition proceedings in the matter of determination of the amount of compensation while they are pending before the Collector and to adduce evidence in the said proceedings. While it is precluded from seeking a reference against the award of the Collector it can defend the award and oppose the enhancement of the amount of compensation sought before the reference court by the person interested in the land. Moreover the local authority has a right to appear and adduce evidence before the reference court. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that the presence of the local authority is necessary for the decision of the question involved in the proceedings before the reference court and it is a proper party in the proceedings. The local authority is, therefore, entitled to be impleaded as a party in the proceedings before the reference court.

81). Fair procedure and just treatment is the core of our jurisprudence. No one should suffer for omission in law or technicalities in rules. Therefore when the law permits the local body to lead evidence then it is implicit in it that the local authority can legitimately expect to be informed or intimated of the proceedings. It would be in consonance with principle of fairness. Otherwise the right to lead evidence shall hand on the oft chance of the authority having come to know of the proceedings. In English cases referred earlier inference was drawn on existence of such right as it would have otherwise worked harshly against the person who was affected even though there were no legal provisions or rules permitting any hearing. Sub- section (2) of Section 50 stands on a higher footing. It entitles the local body to lead evidence. This furnishes reasonable basis to infer that the local body legitimately expects to be informed or intimated of the proceedings. It is an assurance in law of intimation about pendency of the proceedings. How else it is going to exercise the right of assisting in determination of compensation. The entitlement to lead evidence in absence of intimation may, at times, turn out to be empty formally. Consequently the Collector and the Court are impliedly obliged to intimate the local authority about the pendency of the proceedings and its right to lead evidence. The expression, 'may appear and adduce evidence' can be effective and meaningful, only, if the person who is entitled to lead evidence is either aware or made aware of it. If such a person is aware and does not choose to appear then it may be said that it cannot at a subsequent stage claim that even though it was aware and did not appear yet the order against it may be set aside as it should have been made aware. But if he is not aware and if he would have been made aware then he would have led evidence which would have assisted the authority in determination of compensation could be possible only if such person is informed or intimated of the proceedings. Therefore, to obviate any dispute in future proceedings it appears appropriate to hold that even though the language of the Section does not provide for issuance of any notice it is incumbent on the Collector or the Court while determining compensation to intimate the local body by issuing notice to lead evidence, if any. The submission that the local authority must be presumed to know would not be in consonance either with principle of fairplay or with legislative objective of permitting such body to appear and lead evidence. But if the local body does not appear even after intimation by the Collec-tor or the Court then it shall have no right to claim that the order may be set aside as it was not impleaded as a party. In Santosh Kumar v. Central Warehousing Corporation, AIR (1986) SC 1164 it was held that the company or the local authority at whose instance the acquisition is made is not entitled to challenge the determination of compensation except on the ground of fraud, corruption of collusion, therefore, it is in the interest of the person whose land has been acquired that the necessary intimation should be given to the acquiring body at the earliest so that it may not raise the plea of fraud, corruption or collusion after conclusion of the proceedings either before the Court or in appeal. But the obligation of the Collector or the court to issue notice shall be prospective in operation. That is it shall apply to only those proceedings which are initiated hereinafter or are pending before the Collector or Court. It shall not be available in appeals pending against the order passed in reference in High Court or this Court except in those rare cases where the local authority is able to establish that it had no knowledge about the proceedings at any stage and the proceedings were vitiated because of fraud or collusion.