1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1505 OF 2003
STATE OF WEST BENGAL ... APPELLANT(S)
:VERSUS:
ANIL NASKAR ... RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 1509, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516,
1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526,
1527, 1528, 1529, 1530, 1531, 1532, 1533, 1534, 1535, 1536,
1537, 1538, 1539, 1540, 1541, 1542, 1543, 1544, 1555, 1556,
1557, 1558, 1559, 1560, 1561, 1562, 1563, 1564, 1565, 1566,
1567, 1568, 1569, 1570, 1571, 1572, 1573, 1574, 1575, 1576,
1577 and 1578 of 2003
ORDER
These appeals, which are 60 in number, preferred by the State of West
Bengal and the West Bengal Housing Board, a body constituted and incorporated
under the West Bengal Housing Board Act, 1972, are before us aggrieved by and
dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 21.12.2001 passed by a Division
Bench of the Calcutta High Court, refusing to interfere with an award dated
25.8.1992 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Judge, Alipore.
The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.
On the request made by the West Bengal Housing Board, a notification
2
under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948
(“Act” for short) was issued on 3.12.1963, pursuant whereto possession of the lands
was taken on 29.12.1979. The owners of the lands were said to have been paid
rental compensation in terms of the provisions of the said Act, for the period
29.12.1979 to 28.8.1988.
On or before 28.2.1985, notice under Section 4(1A) of the Act was issued
declaring the intention of the State to acquire a vast tract of land.
Eventually, an award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on or
about 31.10.1988 awarding a total sum of Rs.1.42 crores. Although a large number
of land owners were satisfied therewith, 31 land owners filed applications before the
Collector for reference thereof in terms of Section 18 of the Act.
Indisputably, the learned Judge of the Reference Court did not issue any
notice to the West Bengal Housing Board and in its absence, the parties adduced
their respective evidences.
By an award dated 25.8.1992, the Reference Judge awarded a sum of
Rs.59,41,337/- on the following premise:
“Sali lands (Agricultural land) @ Rs. 4726/- per Katha.
Danga + Bagan + Bastu + Chunkhola (non-agricultural land)
@ Rs. 5907/- per Katha.
Tank + Doba (pond) @ Rs. 2362/- per Katha.”
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award passed by the Reference
3
Judge, the State of West Bengal preferred 31 appeals before the High Court and by
reason of the impugned judgment dated 21.12.2001, the said appeals have been
dismissed.
Both the State of West Bengal as also the West Bengal Housing Board have
contended before us that only on 10.1.2002, the latter came to know of the said
judgment of the High Court when they were asked to deposit all the costs and
expenditure incidental to and arising therefrom as the said expenses were required
to be borne by it, as per the order of the High Court.
The West Bengal Housing Board, thereafter, upon obtaining leave of this
Court, have preferred appeals. Special leave petitions were also filed by the State of
West Bengal.
Mr. A. Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor General for India and Mr.
Tapas Ray, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal
and the West Bengal Housing Board, inter alia, raised the following contentions:
(1) The Reference Court failed to discharge its duties of issuing notice to the
requisitioning authority, namely, the Board and thus it has been denied a
reasonable opportunity to place its case before the Reference Court;
(2) The lands in question being low lands, consisting of Shali, Tank,
Chunkhola and Bastu, the Reference Judge and, consequently, the High Court,
4
committed a serious error in so far as they relied upon the exemplars involving large
areas of land, whereas the land holders owned only small parcel of lands;
(3) Both the High Court as also the Reference Court failed to take into
consideration that the State had to expend a huge amount for the development of
the area viz. a sum of Rs.2,82,32,532.00 which was required to be deducted from the
amount of compensation.
(4) The High Court wrongly opined that as only a sum of Rs. 10 per sq. ft. has
been awarded to the land owners, no interference with the award of the Reference
Judge was called for.
(5) The High Court by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 should have considered the appeals on the merit of the matter
and, thus, should not have dismissed the same, almost summarily.
Mr. Alok Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgments.
Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that where the provisions
of the Act are put in force for the purpose of acquiring land, inter alia, at the cost of
any fund controlled or managed by a local authority, the charges for any incidental
to such acquisition shall be defrayed from the said fund. Sub-section (2) of Section
50 lays down that in any proceeding held before the Court or Collector, in such
5
cases, the local authority may appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of
determining the amount of compensation.
Although sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act
provides for an enabling provision, the question in regard to interpretation thereof
has come before this Court on a number of occasions.
In U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi, (1995) 2 SCC 326, a
Constitution Bench of this Court opined:
“24. To sum up, our conclusions are :
1. Section 50(2) of the L.A. Act confers on a local authority for
whom land is being acquired a right to appear in the acquisition
proceedings before the Collector and the reference court and
adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of
compensation.
2. The said right carries with it the right to be given adequate
notice by the Collector as well as the reference court before whom
acquisition proceedings are pending on the date on which the
matter of determination of compensation will be taken up.
3. The proviso to Section 50(2) only precludes a local authority
from seeking a reference but it does not deprive the local
authority which feels aggrieved by the determination of the
amount of compensation by the Collector or by the reference
court to invoke the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution
as well as the remedies available under the L.A. Act.
6
4. In the event of denial of the right conferred by Section 50(2) on
account of failure of the Collector to serve notice of the
acquisition proceedings, the local authority can invoke the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
5. Even when notice has been served on the local authority the
remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution would be available
to the local authority on grounds on which judicial review is
permissible under Article 226.
6. The local authority is a proper party in the proceedings before
the reference court and is entitled to be impleaded as a party in
those proceedings wherein it can defend the determination of the
amount of compensation by the Collector and oppose
enhancement of the said amount and also adduce evidence in that
regard.
7. In the event of enhancement of the amount of compensation by
the reference court if the Government does not file an appeal, the
local authority can file an appeal against the award in the High
Court after obtaining leave of the court.
8. In an appeal by the person having an interest in land seeking
enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the
reference court, the local authority should be impleaded as a
party and is entitled to be served notice of the said appeal. This
would apply to an appeal in the High Court as well as in this
Court.
9. Since a company for whom land is being acquired has the same
right as a local authority under Section 50(2), whatever has been
said with regard to a local authority would apply to a company
too.
10. The matters which stand finally concluded will, however, not
7
be reopened.”
Yet again, in Kanak & Anr. v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.,
(2003) 7 SCC 693, a Division Bench of this Court, following the aforesaid
Constitution Bench decision, held:
“37. Where an appeal has not been filed by the State, it was held
that such an appeal would be maintainable with the leave of the
Court. However, in Gyan Devi this Court did not have any
occasion to consider a provision like the one contained in Section
381 of the Mahapalika Adhiniyam and, thus, the observations of
the Court therein would not be relevant for the purpose of the
present case. The High Court, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of this case cannot be said to have committed any
illegality in allowing the writ petition.
38. However, having said so, in our opinion, the High Court
should have remitted the matter back to the Reference Court with
a direction that the respondent Parishad may be impleaded as a
party so as to enable it to cross-examine the witnesses examined on
behalf of the claimants and examine its own witnesses and bring
on record such other materials as it may deem fit and proper. It
goes without saying, it would also be open to the claimants to
adduce evidence to the contra.”
Similar view was taken by this Court again in NTPC Ltd. v. State of Bihar
& Ors., (2004) 12 SCC 96, stating :
“6. The question which arises for consideration is whether the
appellants have a right to be impleaded in all references. This
8question is no longer res integra. The law is settled by a
Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of U.P. Awas Evam
Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi. In that case, after considering
various provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, it has been held
that the body on whose behalf the land is acquired is not just a
necessary party but is also a proper party before the Reference
Court. It has been held that not giving them notice either at the
stage of fixing compensation by the Collector or by the Reference
Court affects their rights. It has been held that they must be
impleaded as a party in the reference proceedings.”
It is not in dispute that the learned Reference Judge has failed and/or
neglected to perform its statutory duty. It is also a matter of some concern that even
the State of West Bengal did not bring the same to the notice of the learned
Reference Judge or the High Court.
Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the Reference Court did
not issue any notice to the West Bengal Housing Board and as some arguable points
have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants before us, in our opinion,
interest of justice will be subserved if the impugned judgments are set aside and the
matters are remitted to the learned Reference Judge for consideration thereof
afresh. It is directed accordingly.
We place on record that although the learned counsel for the parties have
addressed us, also on the merit of the matters and pointed out that both the
Reference Judge as also the High Court had failed to consider the legal principles
9
governing the grant of compensation, in view of the order proposed to be passed by
us, we do not intend to enter thereinto.
We, however, direct that the West Bengal Housing Board shall file its
written statements before the learned Reference Judge within three weeks from
date. It shall also file all other necessary documents which are in its power and
possession, within four weeks from date.
If the parties intend to adduce any other or further evidence, they may be
permitted to do so wherefor a list of witnesses may be filed before the Court within
six weeks from date.
The Reference Judge is hereby directed to dispose of the matter as
expeditiously as possible and not later than three months from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order.
We may place on record that it is stated before us that the appellants have
deposited about 50% of the enhanced amount before the learned Reference Court
and the said amount has been disbursed amongst the land owners.
The appeals are disposed of with aforementioned observations and
directions.
The costs of the appeals before the High Court as also before this Court
shall abide by the ultimate result of the matter before the Reference Court.
……………………..J
(S.B. SINHA)
10
……………………..J
(CYRIAC JOSEPH)
NEW DELHI,
NOVEMBER 6, 2008.