2010 (2) TMI 1304 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the same benefits as those who settled through mediation before the award u/s 11.
2. Whether the petitioners can invoke Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC.
3. Whether the petitioners' claims are barred by delay and acquiescence.

Summary:

Issue 1: Entitlement to Benefits of Mediation Settlement
The petitioners, landowners whose lands were acquired for Essar Steel Company Limited, filed a petition u/s 226 of the Constitution of India. They sought the same benefits as those landowners who settled through mediation before the award u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court noted that the petitioners had accepted the compensation without demur and did not apply for a reference u/s 18 of the Act. The petitioners' request for additional benefits based on the Supreme Court's mediated settlement was rejected. The Court emphasized that the settlement applied only to those who challenged the acquisition at the outset, before the award u/s 11 was declared. The petitioners, having accepted the award and compensation, could not now claim additional benefits.

Issue 2: Invocation of Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC
The petitioners attempted to find shelter under Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC. The Court clarified that this provision could only be invoked by parties who were part of the original proceedings before the trial court. Since the petitioners were not parties in the writ petitions before the High Court or the Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court, they could not invoke Rule 33 of Order 41. The contention raised on this ground was deemed without merit.

Issue 3: Delay and Acquiescence
The Court highlighted that the petitioners approached the Court much after the award was passed and after accepting the compensation. The petitioners' claims were hit by the vice of delay and acquiescence. The Court noted that the petitioners were attempting to circumvent the provisions of the Act related to the period of limitation by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court found the petitioners' attempt to claim benefits at this belated stage to be lacking in bona fides.

Conclusion:
The petitions were rejected as they did not deserve to be entertained. The Court, however, clarified that this order would not prevent the petitioners from taking appropriate proceedings for their claims before the appropriate forum in accordance with the law. There was no order as to costs.