A company for whom an acquisition is being undertaken has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings or the award.

Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - LOCUS STANDI - COMPANY FOR WHOM ACQUISITION IS UNDERTAKEN - NO RIGHT TO CHALLENGE PROCEEDINGS OR AWARD - SECTION 50 (2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Himalayan Tile and Marble (Pvt.) Ltd., challenged the acquisition of land for their business by the State Government. The petitioners, the original landowners, filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings and the award made on the ground that the acquisition was not for a public purpose and that the company was not a charitable or public purpose company. The learned single Judge allowed the petition relying on the decision in the second Arora case (AIR 1964 SC 1230).
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the appellant company had no locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings or the award. The Court relied on the provisions of Sections 18 and 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which limit the right of a company for whom an acquisition is being made to appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. The Court also held that the agreement entered into between the appellant company and the State Government was made under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and was therefore subject to its provisions.
Issues: 1. Whether a company for whom an acquisition is being undertaken has locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings or the award? 2. Whether the appellant company had a right of appeal against the order of the learned single Judge?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A company for whom an acquisition is being undertaken has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings or the award. This is because such a company is not a "person interested" within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and Section 50 (2) of the Act expressly takes away the right of such a company to demand a reference under Section 18 of the Act. 2. The appellant company had no right of appeal against the order of the learned single Judge because it was not a party to the writ petition and had not taken part in the proceedings.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT - Kotval, C.J.

1. This is an appeal by the third respondent to a Miscellaneous Petition in which were challenged certain proceedings for the acquisition of land.

2. The three petitioners who are brothers were the owners of survey Nos. 6/3, 8/1, 9/1 and 9/2 at village Majas Mogra, Jogeshwari, Bombay admeasuring 2 acres. The Himalayan Tile and Marble (Private) Ltd., the Respondent No. 3 in the Petition are the appellant before us, They carried on the business of manufacture and sale of artificial marbles and tiles. They have a factory on the land adjoining the land of the original petitioners. Some time in 1957 or 1958 at the instance of the third respondents and for their purposes the law was set in motion for the acquisition of the petitioners lands. On 7th of January 1953 a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued and a separate notice thereafter was also issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, to the 1st and the 2nd petitioners. It was alleged on behalf of the petitioners that no notice was served upon the 3rd petitioner. On the 31st of December 1959, the Land Acquisition Officer, similarly issued a notification purporting to be under Section 6 of the Act. According to the petitioners a notice was also issued but was served on the 1st petitioner only on the 25th of January 1960. The acquisition proceedings went on and an award came to be made on the 11th of April 1961 under Section 12 of the Act. It was published in the State Gazette on the 18th of April 1961. On the 11th of December 1961 a letter was written on behalf of the Government, the 1st respondent in the petition, threatening to take possession of the land acquired and soon after on the 12th of January 1962 the present petition, out of which the appeal arises, was filed on the Original Side of this Court.

3. The purpose of the acquisition as stated in all the notifications is under Section 6 or Section 4 was stated as follows:-- "Public purpose for which the land is needed for Himalayan Tiles and Marble Pvt. Ltd.".

4. The petitioners challenged the proceedings taken for the acquisition of their lands as also the award made on 11th April 1961 on several grounds. Initially they alleged that the whole acquisition proceedings were inspired by the Himalayan Tiles and Marbels (Pvt.) Ltd. the 3rd respondent whose officers in collusion with one K.I. Hathi, a surveyor in the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay, the 2nd respondent, wanted to acquire the lands at a cheap rate by using the machinery under the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners alleged that they are ignorant and illiterate people and that this Hathi "promised and represented to the 1st petitioner that the petitioners would be getting a large amount by way of compensation and that there was no harm or prejudice to them in allowing the said lands to be acquired". On this representation the officers of the land acquisition office and Hathi took various signatures of the petitioners or some of them on different papers. The petitioners alleged that the said officers of the department "were interested in the said lands being acquired at the instance and instigation of the 3rd respondent" and that a fraud had been played upon the petitioners by obtaining their signa- tures on various papers and by holding out promises and inducements not to resist the acquisition proceedings. Pursuant to these representations and due to the fraud the petitioners at no stage participated in the enquiries or proceedings as they were not aware of the same. They also challenged the proceedings as invalid and not binding on them and illegal for other reasons. They stated inter alia that the alleged purpose of the acquisition was not a public purpose, that the Himalayan Tile and Marble Private Ltd., was not a company which had any charitable or public purpose as one of its objects, that it was a purely commercial venture carried on by some businessmen for the purpose of their own private

Click Here to Read the rest of this document