1980 (3) TMI 264 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Locus standi of the appellant to file an appeal.
2. Validity of land acquisition proceedings under the amended Land Acquisition Act.

Summary:

Locus Standi of the Appellant:
The appellant, a private company, challenged the Bombay High Court's dismissal of its Letters Patent Appeal. The High Court had ruled that the appellant had no locus standi to file the appeal as it was not a "person interested" within the meaning of s. 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Supreme Court, however, held that the definition of "a person interested" in s. 18 is inclusive and must be liberally construed to include any person who may be directly or indirectly interested in the title to the land or in the quantum of compensation. The Court cited several precedents supporting this view, including the case of Sunder Lal v. Paramsukh das, which stated that a person becomes "interested" if they claim an interest in the compensation to be awarded. The Court concluded that the appellant was indeed a "person interested" as it had to pay the compensation and was thus interested in the quantum of compensation. Therefore, the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of locus standi.

Validity of Land Acquisition Proceedings:
The second issue was whether the land acquisition proceedings were cured by s. 7 of the amending Act. The Supreme Court referred to the case of R.L. Arora v. State of U.P., which upheld the constitutional validity of the amendments to the Land Acquisition Act but laid down certain conditions for validating acquisitions made before July 20, 1962. One of the essential conditions was that the land must have vested in the Government. In this case, the respondents (petitioners before the High Court) had pleaded that they were still in possession of the land, and this was not denied by the Government. The Supreme Court found that the possession of the entire land had not passed to the Government, and thus the acquisition was not complete. Consequently, the acquisition proceedings were void, and the invalidity could not be cured by s. 7 of the amending Act. The appeal was dismissed on this ground, with no orders as to costs.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant had locus standi to file the appeal but the land acquisition proceedings were invalid as the land had not vested in the Government.