Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : C.KONDAIAH, C.V.RAMULU
Sree Mullapudi Venkatarayud, Memorial Medial Trust, Tanuku - Appellant
Versus
Chirapu Varada Raju - Respondent
Decided On : 07-02-71
LAND ACQUISITION - IMPLEADING TRUST AS PARTY - NECESSARY OR PROPER PARTY - SECTION 50(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - RIGHT TO APPEAR AND ADDUCE EVIDENCE - DISTINCTION BETWEEN NECESSARY AND PROPER PARTY - APPLICABILITY OF ORDER 1, RULE 10 AND SECTION 151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - CASE LAW REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-trust sought to implead itself as a party to appeals arising out of land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming to be a necessary or proper party. The Land Acquisition Officer and claimants opposed the application, contending that the trust was neither a person interested nor a necessary and proper party.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant-trust was not a necessary or proper party to the appeals and dismissed the applications. It interpreted Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as granting the local authority or company for whose benefit the land was acquired the limited right to appear and adduce evidence in proceedings before the Collector or the Court of original jurisdiction for determining the amount of compensation. The court distinguished between necessary and proper parties and held that the trust's presence was not necessary for a complete and final decision of the questions involved in the proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant-trust was a necessary or proper party to the appeals arising out of land acquisition proceedings. 2. Interpretation and scope of Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 3. Applicability of Order 1, Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to land acquisition proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as granting the local authority or company for whose benefit the land was acquired the limited right to appear and adduce evidence in proceedings before the Collector or the Court of original jurisdiction for determining the amount of compensation. 2. The court held that the trust was not a necessary party as there was no right to relief against it and its presence was not necessary for a complete and final adjudication of the questions involved in the proceedings. 3. The court held that the trust was not a proper party as it could not be said that without it there could be no effective and complete adjudication of the rights of the parties in the main appeals. 4. The court held that the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code were not applicable to the case as they were excluded by the special provision of Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellant-trust was not a necessary or proper party to the appeals and that the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code were not applicable.
( 1 ) THE appellant-trust for whose purpose and benefit Ac. 5-49 cents of land situate on the outskirts of Tanuku in the District of West Godavari, was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer, the 2nd respondent herein, seeks to implead itself as a party to A. S. No. 352 of 1970 preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer and A. S. Nos. 411 and 412 of 1970 filed by the two claimants. Chitrapu Varadaraju and Kakarla Ravanamma, on the ground that it is a necessary or proper party. The applications have been dismissed by our learned brother A. D. V. Reddy, J. , holding that it is not a necessary party to the appeals. Hence these appeals.
( 2 ) SRI B. V. Subbaiah, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that his client is a necessary, or in any event, a property party to be brought on record in the aforesaid appeals preferred by the respective parties under Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) as it is very much interested in the result of the appeals, and sought the aid of the provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act and Order 1, Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code in support of his plea.
( 3 ) SRI. N. Bapiraju, the learned Counsel for the claimants, opposed the claim of the appellant contending inter alia that the appellant is neither a person interested nor a necessary and proper party and this Court has no jurisdiction to implead it as a party to the appeals arising out of the proceedings under the Act.
( 4 ) THE short question that falls for decision is Whether on the facts and in the circumstances, the appellant-Trust, for whose purpose the land in question has been acquired, is or is not entitled to be brought on record as a party respondent to the appeals preferred to this Court by the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the claimants, for the purpose of enforcing the rights guaranteed to it under Section 50 (2) of the Act?.
( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the scope of the question and the respective contentions of the contesting parties, it is necessary to refer to the intendment and scheme of the Act and the relevant and material provisions thereof. The intendment of the Act, which came into force on March 1, 1894 is to amend the law empowering the Government to acquire land only for a public purpose or for a company and for determining the amount of compensation to be made on account of such acquisition. The expressions "person interested" "court" and "company:, which are material for our purpose, have been defined by clauses (b), defines "person interested" as inclusive of all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of that "person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land. " The expression "court" wherever used, unless there is some thin repugnant in the subject or context, is defined under Section 3 (d) as " a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction" unless a special judicial officer to perform the functions of the Court under the Act has been appointed by the appropriate Government. "company" is defined under clause (e) of Section 3 as "a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1882, or under the (English) Companies Act 1862, to 1890, or incorporated by an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom or by an Indian Law or by Royal Charter or Letters Patent and includes a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 189\60, and a registered society within the meaning of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912".
( 6 ) THE Act is divided into 8 parts. Part II of the Act comprising Section s 4 to 17 deals with acquisition and preliminary investigation. Section 4 requires the appropriate Government to publish a notification in Official Gazette to the effect that the land in any locality is needed or likely to be needed for any public purpose. The persons who are interested in any land sought to be acquired, may make their obj
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.