IMPORTANT POINT
The order of remand by High Court is unavoidable but in the interest of justice order of remand is maintained subject to certain directions given by Apex Court in the judgment.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894-State of Kerala acquired land for the benefit of Public Health Engineering Deptt. of State Govt.-Compensation cases-Several awards made by civil court enhancing the compensation-Kerala Water Authority constituted-Constitution Bench holding in 1995(2) SCC 226 KWA was also entitled to be heard-High Court set aside the references to Civil Court and remanded the case for decision afresh-Whether correct? (Yes, but certain directions are made).
       Held : In our opinion, the High Court has not erred in taking the view which it has taken and directing the reference cases to be remitted to the Civil Court consistently with the law laid down by the Constitution Bench, as K.W.A. shall have to be impleaded as party to the proceedings before civil court from very beginning a retrial becomes unavoidable. (Para 9)
       However held : Keeping in view the fact that the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court was delivered during the pendency of appeals before the High Court and the manner in which K.W.A. also came to be constituted after commencement of land acquisition proceedings and the delay which has already taken place in the conclusion of the proceedings for finalising compensation which delay is not attributable to the claimants though, we maintain the order of remand made by the High Court but make the following directions :
        1. The Kerala Water Authority shall be deemed to have been brought on record in the reference cases as defendant. The cause-title of the reference cases shall be amended accordingly. The K.W.A. may file its written statement to the claim petition filed by the claimants;
        2. The Civil Court shall expeditiously proceed to try the reference cases in compliance with the order of remand made by the High Court;
        3. The statement of the witnesses already recorded on behalf of the claimants need not be recorded afresh;
        4. The Kerala Water Authority shall be allowed an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses which have already been examined. However, such of the witnesses as are not available, and, therefore, cannot be called before the Court, their statements shall not be excluded from consideration and shall be read in evidence;
        5. The claimants may adduce such other evidence as they may propose to do and both the State of Kerala and Kerala Water Authority shall have the liberty of cross-examining such witnesses who are now examined by the claimants;
        6. The Kerala Water Authority shall have the liberty of adducing such evidence as it may propose to do.
       The Kerala Water Authority shall not be entitled to a separate notice of the proceedings. All the parties present in this Court are directed through their respective counsel to appear before the Trial Court on 05.03.2002. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. (Paras 11, 12 & 13)

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. Under Notification dated 19.07.1981, issued under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the State of Kerala acquired land for the benefit of Public Health Engineering Department of the State Government. On 27.08.1982, possession was taken over the acquired land. Sometime in June, 1983, a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made. The Collector (Land Acquisition) initiated proceedings for assessing the amount of compensation payable and made an Award on 15th June, 1986. The claimants sought for a reference to the Civil Court seeksation which was made. These reference applications came to be decided by different awards made by the Civil Court between 1989 and 1991.

3. With effect from 1st April, 1984, the State of Kerala, through an executive order, constituted Kerala Water Authority (K.W.A., for short) as a statutory Corporation. The Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986 (Act No. 14 of 1986), which was given a retrospective operation with effect from 1st day of March, 1984 declared Kerala Water Authority to have been constituted under the Act.

4. The State of Kerala and Kerala Water Authority preferred appeals, laying challenge to the several awards made by the Civil Court and for enhancing the amount of compensation. During the pendency of appeals before the High Court, came the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Gyan Devi (Dead) By L.Rs. and Others, (1995(2) SCC 326), wherein it was held that the company for whose benefit the land was acquired was also entitled to appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the compensation. One of the grounds which persuaded the Constitution Bench in forming that opinion was that the amount shall have to be paid by the local authority and, therefore, it was a proper party entitled to contest the proceedings. We need not reproduce in extenso the law laid down by the Constitution Bench. For our purpose, it would suffice to note that in the opinion of the Constitution Bench, the right conferred on the local authority under Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, in the light of the scheme of the Act, carried with it the right to be given adequate notice by the Collector as well as the reference court before whom acquisition proceedings are pending of the date on which the matter of determination of compensation will be taken up; the local authority is a proper party in the proceedings before the reference court and is entitled to be impleaded as a party in those proceedings wherein it can defend the determination of the amount of compensation by the Collector and oppose enhancement of the said amount and also adduce evidence in that regard; in the event of enhancement of amount of compensation by the reference court if the Government does not file any appeal, the local authority can file an appeal against the award in the High Court after obtaining leave of the Court. The Constitution Bench, however, added a rider to its judgment that the law laid down by it would not have the effect of re-opening the matters which stand finally concluded.

5. It cannot be doubted that on 20th October, 1994, the date on which the Constitution Bench delivered its judgment, the matters relating to compensation in the present case had not achieved the finality and had not stood finally concluded inasmuch as the same were pending in appeal in the High Court and appeal is a continuation of original proceedings. So far as the award given by the Collector is concerned, that can be said to have become final before the date of decision of Constitution Bench but not the award given by the Civil Court on reference.

6. The High Court, in its impugned judgment, formed an opinion that the law laid down by the Constitution Bench governed the cases at hand and, therefore, the award given by the Civil Court on reference, stood vitiated for want of notice to K.W.A. The High Court allowed all the appeals pendin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 119

IMPORTANT POINTThe order of remand by High Court is unavoidable but in the interest of justice order of remand is maintained subject to certain directions given by Apex Court in the judgment.

IMPORTANT POINT
The order of remand by High Court is unavoidable but in the interest of justice order of remand is maintained subject to certain directions given by Apex Court in the judgment.