Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, the acquiring body, challenged the judgment and award passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur in Land Acquisition Case No.207/1993 decided on 12th April 2001, which allowed the reference filed by the respondent no.1 (Gulab S/o Rajaram Dangore) and awarded compensation of Rs.6,98,000/- along with statutory benefits. The appellant contended that they were not a party to the reference proceedings and thus had no opportunity to defend the claim, causing great prejudice. The respondent no.1 was the landowner whose land was acquired for the Khumari Talao Project. The State of Maharashtra and the Special Land Acquisition Officer were also respondents. The appellant relied on a Division Bench judgment of the same Court in First Appeal No.877/2009 dated 30th July 2009, which held that the acquiring body is entitled to be impleaded as a party defendant in reference proceedings. The Court noted that it was not disputed that the appellant was the acquiring body and was not a party to the proceedings, nor aware of their pendency. The Division Bench had remanded the matter to the Reference Court for adjudication after putting the acquiring body on terms. The Court found no reason to deviate from that precedent. Additionally, the Court noted that by an order dated 24th July 2001, the operation of the impugned judgment was stayed on condition that the appellant deposit 50% of the awarded amount, which the appellant did, and the respondent no.1 was allowed to withdraw a sum. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the matter to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication after impleading the appellant and giving them an opportunity to be heard, subject to the appellant depositing the balance 50% of the awarded amount within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Reference Proceedings - Impleadment of Acquiring Body - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The acquiring body, not being a party to the reference proceedings, was denied an opportunity to defend the claim. The Court held that the acquiring body is entitled to be impleaded as a party defendant in reference proceedings, and the matter was remanded to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication after putting the acquiring body on terms. (Paras 1-6) B) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Stay and Deposit - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The High Court had stayed the operation of the impugned judgment on condition that the appellant deposit 50% of the awarded amount. The appellant deposited the said amount, and the respondent was allowed to withdraw a sum. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned judgment is vitiated in view of the fact that the appellant were not parties to the Reference proceedings?
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 12th April 2001 in Land Acquisition Case No.207/1993 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication after impleading the appellant and giving them an opportunity to be heard, subject to the appellant depositing the balance 50% of the awarded amount within four weeks.
Law Points
- Acquiring body is entitled to be impleaded as party defendant in reference proceedings under Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Non-joinder of acquiring body vitiates reference proceedings
- Remand for fresh adjudication after impleading acquiring body
