2003 (10) TMI 648 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether and, if any, to what extent a Writ Petition will be maintainable at the instance of the respondent- Parishad questioning an award made on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act ?

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition by the respondent-Parishad.
2. Validity of the appeal under Section 381 of the Mahapalika Adhiniyam.
3. Entitlement to benefits under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984.
4. Service of notice to the respondent-Parishad.
5. Legality of the deeds of assignment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The Supreme Court examined whether the writ petition filed by the respondent-Parishad was maintainable. The High Court had held that the writ petition was maintainable because the alternative remedy of appeal under the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam was considered onerous and not clear. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing that the writ petition was the only remedy available to the Parishad due to the fluid state of the law regarding the Parishad's locus standi to file an appeal against the judgment of the Reference Court. The Court noted that the writ petition was entertained, and the matter was argued on merits, making it too late to contend that the respondent should have availed an alternative remedy.

2. Validity of the Appeal under Section 381 of the Mahapalika Adhiniyam:
The Court found that the appeal filed by the respondent-Parishad under Section 381 of the Mahapalika Adhiniyam was not maintainable. Section 381 requires a certificate from the Tribunal or special leave from the High Court, neither of which was obtained. The respondent was not a party before the Tribunal and could not apply for a certificate. Consequently, the appeal was non-est in the eye of law, and the question of complying with the conditions precedent, such as depositing the awarded amount, did not arise. Therefore, the writ petition was rightly filed.

3. Entitlement to Benefits under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984:
The Supreme Court held that the claimants were entitled to all benefits under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, as established in previous judgments such as Savitri Cairae v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Anr. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act were to be read into the provisions of the Adhiniyam, entitling the claimants to solatium, interest, and additional amounts.

4. Service of Notice to the Respondent-Parishad:
The Court observed that no formal notice was served upon the respondent-Parishad, which was necessary for effectuating the right conferred under Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondent was not represented before the Collector, resulting in prejudice. The Court referred to the decision in Gyan Devi, which emphasized the need for adequate notice to the local authority for whom the land was acquired. The failure to serve notice justified the respondent's filing of the writ petition.

5. Legality of the Deeds of Assignment:
The High Court had held that the deeds of assignment were valid. However, the Supreme Court did not address the interpretation of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act vis-a-vis the relevant provisions of the Mahapalika Adhiniyam. Instead, it remitted the matter to the reference tribunal, allowing the respondent-Parishad to raise all contentions, including the legality of the deeds of assignment, before the Tribunal.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 4170 of 1999 to the extent mentioned, setting aside the High Court's judgment and remitting the matter to the reference tribunal. The Tribunal was directed to implead the respondent-Parishad as a party, allowing all parties to adduce their respective evidence and raise all contentions. The Tribunal was requested to dispose of the matter expeditiously, preferably within three months. No costs were awarded.

← Previous Next →