Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1995 (11) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1995 (11) TMI 484 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues:
1. Impleadment of Department of Space in land acquisition cases.
2. Jurisdiction of High Court in entertaining writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Proper remedy for parties seeking impleadment in pending appeals.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the acquisition of land by the Department of Space, Government of India, for the Rocket Launching Station. The landowners filed for Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act after dissatisfaction with the compensation awarded. The Subordinate Court substantially increased the compensation, leading to appeals by the Special Tehsildar in the High Court of Madras.

2. The High Court, through an interim order, directed the enhanced compensation amounts to be deposited in court. The Department of Space filed writ petitions seeking impleadment in the appeals and a stay on the deposit directive. The High Court, in its judgment, held that the Department of Space could not be considered an interested party and should not be impleaded. The appellants argued citing precedents where similar entities were allowed impleadment in land acquisition cases.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions as mis-conceived, stating that the proper course for impleadment was through the Appellate Court. The appellants should have applied to be impleaded as a party in the pending appeals instead of filing writ petitions under Article 226. The Court emphasized that the High Court should have considered the impleadment issue only in the context of the pending appeals. The dismissal of the writ petitions did not affect the appellants' rights to apply for impleadment in the pending appeals within two months, following the procedure laid down in relevant judgments.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals, emphasizing the correct procedure for seeking impleadment in pending appeals and highlighting that writ petitions under Article 226 were not the appropriate remedy for impleadment. The Court allowed the appellants to file applications for impleadment in the pending appeals within two months, to be considered by the High Court in accordance with the law laid down in relevant judgments.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates