1985 (9) TMI 346 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Gujarat Housing Board is a necessary and proper party to be added in the suit.
2. Interpretation of conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court regarding the status of the acquiring body as an interested party.

Summary:

Issue 1: Necessary and Proper Party

The Gujarat Housing Board filed a Civil Revision Application against the order of the Civil Judge (S.D.), Bhavnagar, which rejected their application to be added as a party-defendant in a suit challenging notifications u/s 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Board argued that it is a body corporate involved in constructing residential buildings for weaker sections and that the land in question was acquired for its benefit. The Civil Judge, referencing Mahuva Municipality v. Mehra Kiritkumar Umedchand, held that the acquiring body is not a necessary or proper party and rejected the application.

Issue 2: Conflicting Supreme Court Decisions

The matter was referred to a larger Bench due to conflicting views in Mahuva Municipality v. Mehta Kiritkumar Umedchand and Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Chandulal Shamaldas Patel, which held that the acquiring body is not a necessary party, and Himalaya Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. v. Francis Victor Coutinho, which held that the acquiring body is a necessary party. The larger Bench, after considering various decisions and the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, concluded that the acquiring body is indeed an interested party. The Bench highlighted the inclusive definition of "person interested" u/s 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act and emphasized the acquiring body's stake in the compensation and the outcome of the litigation.

The Bench noted that when there are conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court by co-equal Benches, the later decision should prevail. Therefore, the decision in Himalaya Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. v. Francis Victor Coutinho was followed, establishing that the Gujarat Housing Board is an interested party whose presence is necessary to effectually and completely decide the issues in the suit.

Conclusion:

The reference was answered by declaring that the person for whose benefit the land is acquired is an interested party and has the right to be added as a party-defendant. The Civil Revision Application was allowed, setting aside the trial Judge's order and granting the Gujarat Housing Board's application to be added as a party-defendant in the suit.