Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned land acquisition for the Rocket Launching Station at Sri Hari Kota, belonging to the Indian Space Research Organisation, Department of Space, Government of India. An area of about 37,792 acres was acquired in the 1970s. For expansion of space programmes, the Department of Space sought additional lands at the southern tip of Sri Harikota Islands in Marimanal village, Pooneri Taluka, Chengai Anna District, Tamil Nadu, totaling about 5,394 acres. The Central Government entrusted its functions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the State of Tamil Nadu vide Notification No.4(1)/65 dated 23.4.1966 under Article 258(1) of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Governor of Tamil Nadu issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 3.11.1982. The Land Acquisition Officers awarded compensation at Rs.10 per cent of land besides compensation for trees and crops. Dissatisfied landowners sought references under Section 18; the Subordinate Court at Tiruvallur enhanced the compensation to between Rs.100 and Rs.180 per cent by judgment dated 31.1.1986. The Special Tehsildar filed appeals before the High Court of Madras. The High Court directed deposit of the entire enhanced award amounts within 12 weeks as a condition for stay. Since the compensation was to be paid by the Department of Space, State revenue authorities urged the Department to deposit the amounts. The Department of Space then filed writ petitions in the High Court seeking impleadment in the pending appeals and stay of the deposit direction. The High Court by judgment dated 28.4.1989 held that the requisitioning department could not be considered an interested party and should not be impleaded. Challenging this, the Union of India relied on U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi and Union of India v. Sher Singh. Respondents contended that U.P. Awas was distinguishable because that body was a local authority under Section 3(i) of the U.P. Act and Section 50(2) conferred a right to appear; here the Union was not a local authority. Respondents also argued that under Section 3(ee) of the Land Acquisition Act, the appropriate Government for Union purposes was the Central Government, and after delegation to Tamil Nadu under Article 258(1), the Union could not claim separate impleadment. The Supreme Court did not decide these merits. It held that the writ petitions were misconceived because the only proper course was to apply to the Appellate Court for impleadment in the pending appeals. Collateral proceedings under Article 226 could not be instituted for such relief. The High Court had unnecessarily entertained the writ petitions and decided the question on merits without the benefit of the later Constitution Bench decision in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad. The appeals were disposed of by dismissing the writ petitions, with liberty to the Union of India to file proper applications in the pending appeals within two months, to be considered by the High Court in accordance with law in light of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad and other decisions relied upon therein. No order as to costs; application for substitution was allowed.
Headnote
A) Constitution - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability of Writ for Impleadment - Article 226 Constitution of India - A requisitioning department cannot seek impleadment in pending land acquisition appeals through a writ petition; the proper remedy is to file an application in the pending appeals - The High Court erred in entertaining writ petitions and deciding impleadment on merits when appeals were pending - Held that the writ petitions were misconceived and dismissed, with liberty to apply in pending appeals within two months (Paras not mentioned). B) Land Acquisition - Impleadment of Requisitioning Department - Section 50(2) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Whether the Union of India, as requisitioning department, is a local authority or interested party entitled to be impleaded in reference appeals - The Supreme Court did not decide this issue on merits because of the writ maintainability bar - Held that the High Court should consider a proper application in pending appeals in light of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (1995) 2 SCC 326 and Union of India v. Sher Singh (1993) 1 SCC 608 (Paras not mentioned). C) Constitution - Delegation of Functions - Article 258(1) Constitution of India and Section 3(ee) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Delegation of land acquisition functions to State does not preclude Central Government's interest - Issue left open due to dismissal of writ petitions - Held that the merits of delegated authority and impleadment rights to be considered if proper application filed (Paras not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a requisitioning department for whose benefit land is acquired can be impleaded as a party in appeals against enhancement of compensation in land acquisition proceedings; and whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for such impleadment when appeals are pending
Final Decision
Appeals disposed of; writ petitions dismissed as misconceived with liberty to Union of India to file applications in pending appeals within two months; High Court to consider in accordance with law including U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad; no order as to costs; substitution application allowed.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked for impleadment in pending appeals
- proper remedy is to file an application in pending appeal
- Section 50(2) Land Acquisition Act rights left open
- appropriate Government under Section 3(ee) and delegated power under Article 258(1) not decided on merits
