9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (2) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue being identical, this judgment would govern all of them. 4. The State of Haryana initiated the acquisition proceedings under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act) for the public Purpose of setting up a wrist watch manufacturing factory by the petitioner-company of M/s. Indo Swiss Time Ltd., in village Dundahara. A sum of ₹ 100 was to be contributed by the State and the rest of the compensation money was to be paid by the company. The possession of the land was taken and handed over to the company after acquisition. Subsequent to the ward of the Collector the landowners-claimants preferred a reference for the enhancement of the compensation in the Court of the District Judge, Gurgaon. The matter ultimately came up before the leaned Addl. District Judge, Gurgaon, before whom an application was preferred by the petitioner-Company under Section 52 of the Act read with O. 1. R. 20 Civil P.C., seeking expressly to be impleaded as a respondent to defend the case for the purpose of determination of the amount of compensation. The learned Additional District Judge rejected the prayer of the petitioner-Company for being impleded as a party but al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s obliged it discharge substantially if not wholly the burden of the payment of its compensation, would be obviously a person interested within the meaning of the definition and the use of the phrase in the Act. 9. The question, whether a Company for whose benefit the acquisition proceedings had been instituted, was a person interested in the proceedings that ensued from such acquisition-arose directly for decision before their Lordships in Himalaya tiles and marbles (P) Ltd. Case AIR 1980 SC 1118(Supra). Therein the appellant--Company had moved the Government for acquiring additional land for the purpose of its existing factory and accordingly notification under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Act were duly issued and the proceedings culminated in an award under S. 12 of the Act. This acquisition was challenged by some of the land owners by way of a writ petition on the ground that the land was not acquired for any public purpose as contemplated by S. 4 of the Act and that the Government was not competent to acquire the same for the purposes of a Company which could not be said to be a public purpose. In this writ petition, the appellant-Company was impleaded as a party though expressly no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its stake may be extremely vital? For instance, the land acquisition proceedings may be held to be invalid and thus a person concerned is completely deprived of the benefit which is proposed to be given to him. Similarly, if such a person is not heard by the Collector or a court, he may have to pay a very heavy compensation which, in case he is allowed to appear before a court, he could have satisfied it that the compensation was far too heavy having regard to the nature and extent of the land. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view taken by the Orissa High Court or even by the Calcutta High Court that a company, local authority or a person for whose benefit the land is acquired is not an interested person. We are satisfied that such a person is vitally interested both in the title to the property as also in the compensation to be paid therefore because both these factors concern its future course of action and if decided against him seriously prejudice his rights. Moreover, in view of the decision of this Court referred to above, we hold that the appellant was undoubtedly a person interested as contemplated by S. 18(1) of the Act. The High court, therefore committed an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provision of S. 53 would indicate that so far as proceedings before the acquisition spirit are concerned, the Civil Procedure Code would be attracted subject to the bar of any patent inconsistency with the provisions of the Act itself. The crux of the matter, therefore, is whether, O. 1, R. 10 of the Civil P. C. which would be made plainly applicable by S. 53 of the Act, can be excluded on the ground of any conflict with S. 50 thereof? It is on this later provision that basic reliance was placed on behalf of the respondent by Mr. M. S. Liberhan who attempted to contend that these provisions of the Act were diametrically in conflict with those of O. 1, R. 10 of the Civil P. C. and would consequently exclude its application and bar the petitioners from being impleaded as a party. 14. Herein as the argument turns primarily on the provisions of S. 50 of the Act, it is apt to quote it in extenso :- 50. (1) Where the provisions of this Act are put in force for the ;purpose of acquiring land at the cost of any fund controlled or managed by a local authority or of any Company, the charges of and incidental to such acquisition shall be defrayed from or by such fund or Company. (2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ell by virtue of specific amendment) choose to challenge the award of the Collector by making references under S. 18 of the Act then the second stage of the proceedings begins in the Court. Herein now there is no other bar imposed by S. 50 of the Act apart from the limitation that the appearance and the adducing of the evidence by the Company must be directed to the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. Once the matter is before the acquisition court, the proviso to sub-section (2) ceases to have any relevance and indeed has exhausted itself. Therefore, hereafter now the matter must be construed in the light of sub-section (2) of S. 50 (de hors its proviso) and the applicability of the Civil P. C. under S. 53 of the Act. 16. I am unable, therefore, to see any conflict or incon sistency between O. 1, R. 10, Civil P. C. and S. 50(2) of the Act. It is an elementary rule of construction that different provisions of law when made applicable have to be harmoniously construed and content and meaning must be given to every word of the Statute. So construing the two provisions together it appears to me that O. 1, R. 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, which would be attracted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ries Ltd., Bahadurgarh, v. State of Haryana, AIR 1972 Punj Har 59. However what seems to me in clinching the issue is the fact that this judgment was not only referred to with approval but the material part thereof was quoted in extenso by their Lordship in Himalaya Tiles' and Marbles (P.) Ltd. Case (supra). Therefore the final seal of approval has been directly set on the view that a company for whose benefit land has been acquired is entitled to be impleaded as a party. 19. Now because of the binding precedent in Himalaya Tiles and Marbles (P.) Ltd. Case (AIR 1980 SC 1118)(supra), it seems wasteful to launch on a survey of the case law taking the contrary view or to refute the reasoning of individual judgments. The best example of the opposite view is the exhaustive judgment of the Full Bench in Andhra Pradesh Agricultural university Rajendranagar v. Mahmoodunnisa Begum AIR 1976 Andh Pra 134 without adverting to it in any great detail it would suffice to mention that the very cornerstone of this judgment was the twin finding that neither the State nor the Company for whose benefit the land was acquired, could be deemed as a person interested under the Act and further tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y contended that the judgment of their Lordships in Himalaya tiles and Marbles (P) Ltd. case (AIR 1980 SC 1118) had failed to notice the binding precedent in Municipal corporation of the City of Ahmedabad's case and, therefore, it must be assumed that they had not intended to deviate from the law as declared in the earlier case. Counsel therefore, insisted with great vehemence that in face of a direct conflict the earlier view which had not been noticed and has not been dissented from must necessarily have the pride of place. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sarin has contended that the more elaborate and exhaustive enunciation of the law which has been rendered in the Himalaya Tiles' case must now be necessarily followed in preference to the earlier view. 22. A perusal of the judgment sin the Municipal corporation of the City of Ahmedabad (1970) 1 SCWR 183 and Himalaya Tiles' (AIR 1980 SC 1118) cases would plaintly indicate that there is a direct conflict on the point therein Both the judgments have been rendered by a Bench Consisting of two Hon'ble Judges and cannot possibly to reconciled. This situation at once brings to the fore the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the celebrated Co. Ltd., Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd., (1944) KB 718. Therein in a similar context of the court of appeal being bound by its previous decisions it was held that it was not only entitled but indeed duty bound to decide which of the two conflicting decisions of its own will it follow in case of a clear divergence of the opinion in the earlier precedents. 25. I am conscious of the fact that a narrowly divided Bench in Govindanaik G. Kalaghatigi v. West Patent Press Co. Ltd., AIR 1980 Kant 92(FB) has taken he view by a majority of three to two that in such a situation the later of the two decisions should be followed. A perusal of the judgment, however, would show that in fact there were two question before the Full Bench--firstly, that where there was conflict of two decisions of the Supreme Court of unequal Benches which one is to be followed and secondly where these decisions were of c0-equal benches then which decision is to be followed. It is patent that the majority view adverted to the first of the two questions alone and there does not appear to be any discussion whatsoever on the second issue. Minority view on the other hand whilst agreeing with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese two decision. That being so we must prefer to follow the decision in Sarvate T. B.'s case as against the decision in Smt. Kamala Soni's case, as the former is a decision of a larger bench than the latter. Moreover on principle, the view taken in Sarvate T. B.'s case commends itself to us and think that it the right view. It would be evident from the underlined observations above that even in such a situation their Lordships considered the principle and the correctness of the view to be a relevant facto. Again in Union of India, v. K. S. Subramanian, AIR 1976 SC 2433, a similar issue arose and Beg J., speaking for the bench held as follows :- *** But, we do not think that the High Court acted correctly in stirting the view expressed by larger Benches of this court in the manner in which it had done this. The proper course for a High court, in such a case is to try to find out and follow the opinion expressed by larger benches of this court in preference to those expressed by smaller Benches of the Court. That is the practice has now crystallised into a rule of law declared by this court. If however the High Court was of opinion that the views expressed by lar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extent that the petitioner are hereby allowed to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings. There will however be no order as to costs. 33. The State of Haryana initiated the acquisition proceedings under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for the public purpose of setting up a wrist watch manufacturing factory by the petitioner-company of M/s Indo Swiss time Ltd., in village Dundahera, which culminated into the filing of an award by the Collector under S. 12 of the Act. Feeling dissatisfied from the award of the Collector the landowners filed application under S. 18 of the Act requiring the Collector to refer the matter of enhancement of the compensation to the Court of the district Judge, Gurgaon. After reference the matter was take up by the Additional District Judge, Guraon, before whom an application was preferred y the petitioner-company under S. 50(2) of the Act read with O. I. R. 10 of the Civil P. C., praying that it may be impleaded as a respondent to defend the case for the purpose of determination of the amount of compensation. The learned Additional District Judge rejected the prayer of the petitioner for being implea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose of determination of the amount of compensation, that the company is not a 'person interested,' that the company is not entitled to claim a reference under Section 18 of the Act and that a company is neither a necessary not a proper party and is not entitled to become a party by invoking the provision of O. I. R. 10 of the Civil P.C. In Support of his contention the learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Supreme court in Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahamendabad v. Chandulal shamaldas, (1970) 1 SCWR 183. The learned counsel also drew out attention to the judgment of the Gujarat high Court in Gautamlal Naranlal v. Addl. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1970 Guj 81; Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, Rajendranagar v. Mahmoodunnisa Begum, AIR 1976 Andh Pra. 134, Sangit Mohinder Singh v. Punjab University, Patiala, AIR 1975 Punj Har 318; Nihal Chand v. District Board, Mianwali, AIR 1936 Lah 564 and an unreported Division Bench judgment of this Court in C. Misc Nos 906-C/1-76 961-C/1-76 in R. F. A. No. 600 of 1976, decided on 8th April, 1977(Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Ltd., v. Narinder Nath Jain). 38. On a careful consideration of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the use of the Municipal Corporation after it was acquired by the Government, but that, in our judgment, did not confer any interest in the Municipal Corporation so as to enable it to file an appeal against the order of the High Court allowing the petition. Substantially the grounds on which the petition was filed were that the notification were invalid on account of diverse reasons. Some of these reasons have been upheld and some have not been upheld; but all those grounds related to the validity of the Notifications issued by the government of Bombay and the government of Gujarat. Not even an order of costs has been passed against the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad. We fail to see what interest the Municipal Corporation has which would sustain an appeal by it against the order of the High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondents. 42. From the bare perusal of the aforesaid observation is quite evident that their Lordship of the supreme Court have held that in acquisition proceedings a company has no interest and that it has no right to file an appeal. When a company has no right to file an appeal then a fortiori it follows that an applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
