9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng and chequered history of the litigation, giving rise to the question aforesaid, need not be recounted in meticulous detail It suffices to mention that this arises from the land acquisition proceedings for the construction of a fire brigade station in Patna City itself, commenced sometime in the late nineteen-sixties. Shanti Devi, Opposite Party No. 1, who is the awardee in the case, purchased the land from Anand Ballabh Prasad Yadav by a registered sale deed executed way back on the 27th of June, 1964. In the somewhat protracted and long drawn out acquisition proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer, ultimately the 21st of Sept., 1971, was fixed for the payment of compensation to the awardee Shanti Devi. This payment was sought to be obstructed by Anand Ballabh Prasad Yadav, who filed a petition before the Land Acquisition Officer, primarily purporting to allege that the registered sale deed in favour of Shanti Devi was a Farzi one and that he was fraudulently kept out of the picture in the acquisition proceedings. This petition was, however, rejected. Aggrieved thereby, another petition was moved before the Additional Collector on the 27th of Sept., 1971, which met the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Consequently, both the applications were rejected. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the present civil revision has been preferred. It originally came up for hearing before a Division Bench constituted by my learned brothers N.P. Singh, J., and M.P. Varma, J. Before them the extreme proposition that a person, who was not a party to the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer, can never be allowed to be impleaded in the reference proceedings before the Land Acquisition Judge and, indeed, Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code was wholly inapplicable in the context, was seriously assailed. Noticing the significance of the question and the conflict of precedent and casting some doubt on the view in State of Bihar v. Parsuram Prasad Verma (supra) the matter was referred to the larger Bench. 6. In course of argument it became common ground before us that the solitary question suggested in the reference was somewhat restricted and the real and meaningful issues which necessarily emerged for adjudication were those which have already been formulated at the very outset Equally, it was the common prayer that considering the protracted litigation and delay in the disposal of this civil revision, the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested." "20. Service of Notice-- The Court shall thereupon cause a notice, specifying the day on which the Court will proceed to determine the objection, and directing their appearance before the Court on that day, to be served on the following persons, namely : XX XX XX (b) all persons interested in the objection, except such (if any) of them as have consented without protest to receive payment of the compensation awarded:- XX XX X" 10. Now the plain language of Section 3(b) would indicate that it is sought to be couched in wide terms. But, at the out set, it deserves highlighting that this is an inclusive definition and in no way cuts into the larger connotation of the expression "person interested". It includes within its sweep all persons claiming any interest in the compensation to be made. Not only that, the law extends it by a deeming fiction to persons who have even an interest in the easement affecting such a land. There appears to be now little doubt, in view of the binding precedent that the definit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in an award under Section 12 of the Act. This acquisition was challenged by some of the land owners by way of a writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that the land was not required for any public purpose, as contemplated by Section 4 of the Act, and the Government was not competent to acquire the same for the purpose 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 relief was claimed against him. The learned single Judge, before whom the matter came initially, quashed the acquisition proceedings. The appellant Company then preferred a Letters Patent Appeal. Therein an objection was taken on behalf of the respondents that the appellant-Company had no locus standi to maintain the Letters Patent Appeal. This objection was upheld by the Letters Patent Bench in Himalayan Tiles and Marble (Private) Limited v. Francis V. Coutinho AIR1971Bom341 primarily on the ground that the appellant Company, as such, was not a 'person interested' within the meaning of Section 18(1) of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the Company appealed to the Supreme Court. 12. Now a reference to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 183 (supra). Relying heavily on the isolated and solitary observation in the order, learned Counsel for the respondents had forcefully contended that the judgment of their Lordships in the Himalaya Tiles and Marble (Private) Limited AIR1971Bom341 (supra) had failed to notice the earlier binding precedent in the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad's case (supra) and, therefore, it must be assumed that they did not intend to deviate from the law as declared in the earlier case. With great vehemence it was contended that in face of the direct conflict, the earlier view, which had not been noticed and was not expressly dissented from, must necessarily have the pride of place. On the other hand, Mr. Rama Kant Varma, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the more elaborate and exhaustive enunciation of the law, which has been rendered in the Himalaya Tiles and Marble (Private) Limited (supra) must necessarily be followed in preference to the earlier view. 14. To appreciate the rival contentions, one may hearken back to the short order in the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Chandulal Shamaldas Patel . In a recent Full Bench of this Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Marble (Private) Limited [1980]3SCR235 (supra). However, both the judgments have been rendered by a Bench consisting of two Hon'ble Judges and cannot possibly be reconciled. This situation at once brings to the fore the somewhat intricate question posed at the outset, which has come to be of not infrequent occurrence, namely, when there is a direct conflict between two decisions of the Supreme Court, rendered by co-equal Benches which of them should be followed by the High Courts and the Courts below. 16. Now the contention strongly urged on behalf of the respondents that the earlier judgment of a co-ordinate Bench is to be mechanically followed and must have preeminence, irrespective of any other consideration, because the latter one has missed notice thereof, does not commend itself to me. When judgments of the superior Courts are of co-equal Benches, and, therefore, a matching authority, then their weight inevitably must be considered by the rational and the logic thereof and not by the mere fortuitous circumstance of the time and date on which they were rendered. Equally, the fact that the subsequent judgment failed to take notice of the earlier one or any presumption t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18. I am not unaware that in Govindnaik G. Kalaghatigi v. West Patent Press Company Limited AIR 1980 Kan 92, a narrowly divided Full Bench has taken the view, by majority of three : two, that in such a situation, the later of the two decisions should be followed. A perusal of the judgment would, however, show that, in fact, there were two questions firmly posed before the Full Bench -- firstly that where there was a conflict of two decisions of the Supreme Court of unequal Benches, which one is to be followed and, secondly, when these decisions are of co-equal Benches, then which decision is to be followed. It seems somewhat 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 question. The minority decision, however, while agreeing with the majority view on the first question, adverted to the second question and considered the matter in detail, concluding as follows : -- ".....It seems to us, therefore, the High Court would be well advised to consider which of two conflicting decisions it will follow in the interest of the administration of justice and it ought to follow th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rk at page 2244 (Third Edn.). "But judgments of the Supreme Court, which cannot stand together, present a serious problem to the High Courts and to the subordinate Courts. It is submitted that in such situations, the correct thing is to follow that judgment which appears to the Court to state the law accurately, or more accurately than the other conflicting judgment." 21. Yet again, it appears to me that the tenuous theory of pre-eminence by time alone in judicial precedent has now been conclusively exploded. As a matter of recent legal history, it may be recalled that it was earlier advocated that the latest judgment of the Final Court must be followed irrespective of the fact whether it was rendered by larger or smaller Bench. It was so held in A.J. Aramha v. Mysore Road Transport Corporation (1974) 1 Kant LJ 344. Such a view now stands overruled by the Supreme Court in Mattulal v. Radheylal [1975]1SCR127 . Therein the Court was itself faced with two directly contradictory judgments. Bhagwati, J., (as his Lordship then was), speaking for the Bench, in following the earlier judgment in preference to the later one, observed as follows :-- "Now there can be no do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect, the decision in Jamuna Raiv. Chandradip Rai AIR 1967 Pat 178 , therefore, to be overruled, 22. From the aforesaid discussions it would be manifest that the theory of preeminence of a judgment by virtue of its time and the latest alone has now been conclusively laid to rest. In the present context also the anomalies inherent in such a rule would interestingly be highlighted, if one were to interchange the dates of the two judgments in Himalaya Tiles and Marble (Private) Ltd. v. Francis Victor Coutinho of the City of Ahmedabad v. Chandulal Shamladas Patel 1970 1 SCWR 183 (supra). If the judgment in the .Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad had been delivered later, then on the time theory had to be followed, even though no intricate question of law had been considered, whilst disposing of a preliminary objection. With great respect, doing so, in my view, can hardly be justified and would tend to make a mockery of the theory of precedent, which is necessarily rested on the logic, reasoning and the ratio of a judgment. 23. I am more than amply conscious of the difficulties of making a choice between decisions of the superior court when they are in direct conflict with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with great respect, prefer to follow the more elaborate and well reasoned judgment rendered in the Himalaya Tiles and Marble (Private) v. F.V. Coutinho [1980]3SCR235 in preference to the brief observations in the order in the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Chandulal Shamaldas Patel 1970 1 SCWR 183 (supra). 26. Once the issue of precedent is out of the way, then, in the light of the preceding discussions, it is to be held that the concept of the 'person interested' in the Land Acquisition Act, has to be construed somewhat widely and literally. The mere fact that a person or a party may not have been before the Land Acquisition Officer would not by itself conclusively bar and exclude him from the ambit of being a 'person interested.' 27. Though the petitioners succeed on the aforesaid preliminary threshold question, it would seem that this is a somewhat pyrrhic victory. A further hurdle remains in their way, namely, that even though the petitioners may well be within the ambit of being a 'person interested', the question still remains, whether, in the absence of any appearance before the Land Acquisition Officer, they can now barge in and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk interested in such land; X X X (2) To the said statement shall be attached a schedule giving the particulars of the notices , served upon, and of the statements in writing made or delivered by the parties interested respectively." "20. Service of notice.-- The Court shall thereupon cause a notice, specifying the day on which the Court will proceed to determine the objection, and directing their appearance before the Court on that day, to be served on the following persons, namely : (a)..... (b) all persons interested in the objection, except such (if any) of them as have consented without protest to receive payment of the amount of compensation awarded;..... X X X" "21. Restriction on scope of proceedings. --The scope of the enquiry in every such proceeding shall be restricted to a consideration of the interests of the persons affected by the objection." In construing the aforesaid provisions, one must hearken back to the authoritative pithy observation of their Lordships with regard to the very nature of this jurisdiction in (Raj) Pramatha Nath Mullick Bahadur v. Secretary of State:- "Their Lordships have no doubt that the jurisdic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered to. 30. It would thus appear that the very requirements of Section 18 are clearly indicative of the assumption that the person claiming a reference has been before the Collector and is a person interested who has 'not accepted the award and has specific objections to make with regard thereto. 31. Now apart from the above, a combined reading of Sections 19 and 20 is equally instructive. For making the reference the Collector is enjoined to indicate the name of the person who, he has reason to think, is interested in such land and shall also attach a schedule giving particular of the notices served upon and the statement in writing made or delivered by the parties interested respectively. This in a way is again a pointer to the fact that the parties before the Court are those which have been before the Collector whom he either thinks to be persons interested or who have already been duly served with notices in the proceeding. Yet again, the service of notice by Section 20 is enjoined only upon the applicant, the person interested in the objection, and the Collector, if necessary. On the basis of these provisions it was argued and, in my view rightly, that the Us before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would indicate that a person joining afresh could not possibly be bound by the conditions prescribed therein. Consequently adding an altogether new party in the proceeding before the Court would in a way have run counter to the letter and spirit of the said provision as well. 34. Now apart from the clear pointers emanating from the afore-noticed provisions of the Act, the issue deserves consideration in the larger prospect and the larger principle as well. Once it is held, which must undisputedly be so, that the jurisdiction is a special jurisdiction, the interpretative exercise has to take care that the basic premise of the statute is not overriden to convert it into a general one. 35. It seems somewhat patent that entertaining and allowing persons who were not before the Collector to become parties to the proceeding before the District Judge would run counter to the letter and spirit of the statute and is bound to enlarge the arena and bring in issues which would be extraneous to what had been earlier considered by the Collector. Doing so would be deviating from the very nature of the special jurisdiction, and would, thus, be opening a pandora's box of ills on which later ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missed appearance before the Collector without a legal remedy. This submission is well met by the reply that in a situation where a genuine claimant despite the wide ranging provisions of the Act does not choose to appear before the Collector then he has only to blame himself for the result. This apart, if there is a genuine and weighty reason for having failed to appear before the Collector, it is always open for him to show cause for such absence, and if he could get over the limitations of reference under Sub-section (2) of Section 18, to claim a fresh reference to the District Court. Where any such genuine claim is wrongly denied to him by the Collector, the doors of the writ jurisdiction are always open for the correction of any such erroneous order. Any remedial impediments cannot possibly impel one to misconstrue the spirit and letter of the statute and bring in rank outsiders at the reference stage before the District Court as of first instance under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code. It was rightly urged and apprehended on behalf of the opposite parties that the law can either bar the door but having let a person in, it is not easy to bar his raising extraneous issues and clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onment, or as to title to receive compensation, on the application within the time prescribed by Sub-section (2) of that Section of a person interested who has not accepted the award. Section 30 authorises the Collector to refer to the Court after compensation is settled under Section 11, any dispute arising as to apportionment of the same or any part thereof or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable. A person shown in that part of the award which relates to apportionment of compensation, who is present either personally or through a representative, or on whom a notice is served under Sub-section (2) of Section 12, must, if he does not accept the award, apply to the Collector within the time prescribed under Section 18(2) to refer the matter to the Court. But a person who has not appeared in the acquisition proceeding before the Collector may, if he is not served with notice of the filing, raise a dispute as to apportionment or as to the persons to whom it is payable, and apply to the Court for a reference under Section 30, for determination of his right to compensation which may have existed before the award, or which may have devolved upon him since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven attempted. The authoritative decision of their Lordships in [1965]3SCR576 clearly holding that Sections 18 and 30 are distinct seems to have been altogether missed. With the deepest deference, it appears that the judgment does not lay down the law correctly and runs counter to Dr. G. H. Grant v. The State of Bihar (supra) and has, consequently, to be overruled. 39. The view 1 am inclined to take is buttressed by a long line of consistent precedent in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. It is perhaps unnecessary to delve further than the Division Bench judgment in Mohammed Ibrahim Sahib v. Land Acquisition Officer, Bhimavaram AIR 1958 AP 226. This was elaborated and followed in Municipality, Nalgonda v. Hakeem Mohiuddin AIR1964AP305 , even under Section 25 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act, which corresponds to Section 30 of the Indian Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Jaganmohan Reddy, J., speaking for the Division Bench was categoric in the undermentioned terms : -- "Once a reference is made the question is whether a person who is not a party to the proceedings when the reference is made can be made a party before the Court. In other words, has the Court jurisdiction to en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ming the money from the person who, according to them, has wrongly taken it, but that is a different matter." The later Division Bench judgment in The State of Bihar v. Parsuram Prasad Verma AIR 1977 Pat 78 taking the same view is the more considered one where L.M. Sharma, J., speaking for the Bench, unequivocally held that even a co-owner having a distinct and specified share in the property acquired, who was not before the Collector, could not be impleaded as a party before the District Judge under Order I Rule 10 of the Code. 43. Now, with the aforesaid long line of precedent both within this Court and without it, facing Mr. R.K. Verma, he had to fairly concede that there was no judgment to the contrary directly holding that a person not before the Collector in the proceedings could nevertheless be impleaded as a party in the reference proceeding under Section 18 before the District Judge. A somewhat tenuous though vain attempt was made to distinguish the case of AIR 1977 Pat 78 (supra) and to sophistically wriggle out of its unequivocal ratio. However, in my view, nothing meaningful could be shown to bypass that judgment nor could any serious challenge be laid to its cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erein the land in dispute was sold by the father of the present petitioners to Smt. Shanti Devi way back on the 27th of June, 1964. Nor is it in dispute that the petitioners filed Title Suit No. 51 of 1973 to assail the said transfer. The said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on the 28th of Nov. 1978. Thereafter it was again restored and again dismissed in default on the 21st of Jan. 1984. The petitioners at no stage attempted to intervene in the proceeding before the Collector earlier or in any case when if they did, they were forthwith nonsuited. They did not choose to come up by way of revision against non-suiting or move the High Court on writ side for being made party to the acquisition proceedings. The reference was claimed only by the land-owner, Smt. Shanti Devi, who had the registered sale deed in her favour. She alone was a party in the proceeding before the Collector. The attempt now is to enlarge the scope of the enquiry under Section 18 into the inter se rights of the vendor, his coparceners and the vendee, and whether the vendor had the power to transfer and even if he had, what was the nature of his share etc. Contentious issues of Hindu Law are questions total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
