IMPORTANT POINT
Acquisition of land – Only a person interested can challenge judgment and award passed by Reference Court.

Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 3(b), 18 and 54 – Acquisition of land – Quantum of compensation – At instance of BDA four appeals challenging judgment and award passed by Reference Court are pending before High Court – Therefore, in facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly when locus of appellant to challenge judgment and award passed by Reference Court is seriously disputed and whether appellant can be said to be a ‘person interested’ within definition of Section 3(b) of Land Acquisition Act and thereby appellant can challenge judgment and award passed by Reference Court enhancing compensation are all disputed questions of facts and are all contentious issues, Single Judge of High Court ought not to have entertained writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India and ought not to have set aside judgment and award passed by Reference Court enhancing amount of compensation under provisions of Land Acquisition Act – Remedy available to appellant would have been to prefer appeal before High Court with application for leave to appeal – High Court ought not to have entertained writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging judgment and award passed by Reference Court, more particularly, when appellant would have a remedy to file appeal under Section 54 with leave of Court and if at all Appellate Court-High Court grants leave to prefer appeal challenging judgment and award passed by Reference Court – Impugned common judgment and order passed by Single Judge of High Court and other allied revision applications quashed and set aside and proceedings before Executing Court restored. (Paras 8, 9, 13, 14, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 11.09.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in FMA No. 887 of 2019by which the High Court has allowed said appeal preferred by the original landowners/claimants by quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 16.02.2017 passed by Single Judge and consequently dismissed the Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012, Shrachi Burdwan Developers Private Limited [claiming to be interested party and ‘person interested’as defined under Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act has preferred the present Civil Appeal No.5856 of 2021 arising out of SLP (C) No. 29801 of 2019.
Findings of Court:
Impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 26.02.2020 passed in C.O. No. 1232 of 2018 and other allied revision applications are hereby quashed and set aside and the proceedings before the Executing Court are restored and the learned Executing Court is directed to proceed further with the execution petitions, subject to any stay granted by the Appellate Court, if any, and of course, subject to the further order that may be passed by the High Court in the applications for leave to appeal/the appeals to be preferred by Shrachi Burdwan Developers Private Limited, the appellant herein,
Result : Appeals Partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 11.09.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in FMA No. 887 of 2019by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the original landowners/claimants by quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 16.02.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge and consequently dismissed the Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012, Shrachi Burdwan Developers Private Limited [claiming to be interested party and ‘person interested’ as defined under Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “Act”)] has preferred the present Civil Appeal No.5856 of 2021 arising out of SLP (C) No. 29801 of 2019.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 26.02.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in C.O. No. 1232 of 2018 and other allied matters by which the learned Single Judge of the High Court has allowed the said revisional applications and has quashed and set aside the awards passed by the Reference Court enhancing the compensation, the original landowners have preferred the present Civil Appeal Nos. 5857-5880 of 2021 arising out of SLP (C) Nos.9991-10014 of 2020.

3. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under:-

3.1 Burdwan Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “BDA”) requisitioned the land in question. The Government issued 12 separate notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Actin the months of April and May, 2005 stating inter alia that the lands would be acquired for public purpose for setting up the Satellite Township for Burdwan Town at public expenses. That thereafter, the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published.

3.2 In the month of August, 2005, Paschim Bardhaman Krishi Kalyan Samity, a group of farmers filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act on the grounds inter alia that the acquisition are not for public purpose and not on public expenses but on private expenses of Bengal Shrachi Housing Development Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Bengal Shrachi”). According to the original claimants – landowners, BDA filed objection pleading that the entire cost of acquisition is borne by the BDA itself and the lands were needed for public purpose. The High Court dismissed the said writ petition holding the acquisition was for public purpose and at public expenses, entirely to be paid by BDA.

3.3 It appears that after declaration was published under Section 6 of the Act, an unregistered Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) dated 08.03.2006 was executed by the BDA with Bengal Shrachi who was chosen in a bid process amongst some other companies for development of lands acquired under a public private partnership.

3.4 That thereafter, the Land Acquisition Collector declared award under Section 12(1) of the Act. The said amount was paid by BDA. That thereafter on 26.02.2007, the State of West Bengal took over possession of the lands from the farmers and handed it over to BDA and BDA handed it over to Bengal Shrachi. In the meantime, at the instance of the landowners References were made to the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court allowed the References and enhanced the compensation from Rs.5,80,700/-per acre as determined by the Collector to Rs.35,00,000/-per acre together with solatium, interest, and other statutory dues thereon.

3.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and order passed by the Reference Court, at the instance of the BDA, four appeals are pending before the High Court of judicature at Calcutta.

3.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court, the appellant herein Shrachi Burdwan Developers Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Shrachi Burdwan”) filed a Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012 bef

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(SC) 544

IMPORTANT POINTAcquisition of land – Only a person interested can challenge judgment and award passed by Reference Court.

Cases Referred (11)

IMPORTANT POINT
Acquisition of land – Only a person interested can challenge judgment and award passed by Reference Court.