9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (11) TMI 889 - HC - Indian LawsLand Acquisition Proceedings - Acquisition of land at cost of a local authority or Company - the third respondent (The City Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited ( CIDCO ) added as an opponent to the land acquisition reference u/s 18 - Third respondent (CIDCO) made application contending that the said respondent was the beneficiary of the acquisition and on the basis of an agreement made by the said respondent with the government of Maharashtra, compensation will be payable by the said respondent - HELD THAT - A person can be said to be a person interested provided that he is the person claiming an interest in the compensation to be made on account of acquisition. Thus, the person who claims to be entitled to compensation or a share in the compensation can only be a person who can be said to be claiming interest in the compensation. Here the CIDCO is not claiming interest in the compensation. In fact, the CIDCO has no concern with the payment of compensation. Therefore, the CIDCO cannot claim right of audience on the ground that it is a person interested . Only possible provision under which the CIDCO could have claimed is Section 50 of the said Act of 1894 which reads thus Acquisition of land at cost of a local authority or Company- (1)Where the provisions of this Act are put in force for the purpose of acquiring land at the cost of any fund controlled or managed by a local authority or of any Company, the charges of any incidental to such acquisition shall be defrayed from or by such fund or Company. In any proceeding held before a Collector or Court in such cases the local authority or Company concerned may appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation - Provided that no such local authority or Company shall be entitled to demand a reference under section 18. In the present case, admittedly, land is not being acquired at the cost of any fund controlled or managed by the CIDCO. As held earlier, the acquisition cannot be said to be on behalf of CIDCO or for benefit of CIDCO in as much as while developing the site of New Bombay, the CIDCO is acting as an agent of the State Government. Therefore, sub-section (2) of Section 50 will have no application in the present case. Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal and factual position , now a reference will have to be made to the impugned order. The only ground on which the CIDCO is ordered to be impleaded is that the CIDCO is a local authority, and therefore, it is a proper party to the reference. The local authority can become necessary or proper party provided sub-section 1 of Section 50 is applicable which is not the case here. In the circumstances, the impugned order will have to be quashed and set aside being completely illegal. Therefore, the petition must succeed. Hence, impugned order dated 29 September, 2008 is quashed and set aside and the application exhibit 113 in LAR No.620/2000 stands dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether CIDCO is a necessary and proper party to the land acquisition reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. Whether CIDCO qualifies as a "person interested" under Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 3. Applicability of Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to CIDCO. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether CIDCO is a necessary and proper party to the land acquisition reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The core issue revolves around whether CIDCO should be impleaded as a party to the land acquisition reference. The petitioner opposed CIDCO's inclusion, arguing that CIDCO was neither the acquiring body nor a necessary or proper party. The State of Maharashtra, represented by the District Government Pleader, contended that CIDCO was the acquiring body and thus a necessary party, as the land was transferred to CIDCO after acquisition by the State. The court examined relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, noting that CIDCO was appointed as a New Town Development Authority under Section 113(3A) of the said Act, acting as an agent of the State Government for developing New Bombay. The court observed that the acquisition was made at the expense of the State Government, not CIDCO, and that CIDCO's role was limited to developing and disposing of the land as an agent of the State Government. Issue 2: Whether CIDCO qualifies as a "person interested" under Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court scrutinized whether CIDCO could be considered a "person interested" under Section 20(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which necessitates issuing a notice to all persons interested in the objection. CIDCO argued that it was a "person interested" because it would bear the financial burden of compensation. However, the court clarified that a "person interested" must claim an interest in the compensation itself, which CIDCO did not. CIDCO was not entitled to any share in the compensation and was not concerned with the amount of compensation as it was payable by the State Government. Issue 3: Applicability of Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to CIDCO. Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, allows a local authority or company for whom land is being acquired to appear and adduce evidence for determining the amount of compensation. CIDCO relied on this provision, asserting that it should be allowed to participate in the proceedings. However, the court concluded that Section 50(2) did not apply because the land was not acquired at the cost of any fund controlled or managed by CIDCO. The acquisition was made by the State Government, and CIDCO's role was merely that of an agent. Conclusion: The court found that CIDCO was neither the acquiring body nor a necessary or proper party to the land acquisition reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. CIDCO also did not qualify as a "person interested" under Section 20. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order that directed CIDCO to be impleaded as a party opponent to the reference, allowing the petition and setting aside the application exhibit 113 in LAR No.620/2000. Order: a) The impugned order dated 29 September, 2008, is quashed and set aside, and the application exhibit 113 in LAR No.620/2000 stands dismissed. b) The petition is allowed accordingly. c) No order as to the costs. d) The reference court shall not proceed with the hearing of the reference till the end of January 2010.
|
