Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
N.K. Parekh, J.
Special Land Acquisition Officer (I), Bombay another.... Claimants.
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay.... Applicants.
Chamber Summons No. 465 of 1987 in land Acq. Ref. No. 25 of 1986 in LAQ. No. 77 of 1982, decided on 6-7-1987.
Advocates appeared :
R.L. Dalal with D.M Trivedi, for Applicant in support.
Mahendra Ghelani, for Claimants.
C.J. Shah, for Special Land Acquisition Officer.
See Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 18 and 50 2). Sections 18 & 50 (2) - Acquisition Proceedings for benefit of Municipal Corporation - Municipal Corporation - Not an interested party - Its right to adduce evidence - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order I, Rule 10.
In dealing with the question as to which of the two decisions of the Supreme Court should the lower Court follow, the majority of the Judges of the Fun Bench held that if there was a conflict between two decisions of coequal Benches and which cannot possibly be reconciled, the Courts must follow the judgment which appears to them to state the law accurately.
Held that the applicants in this case be allowed to be on record of the case but not as a party defendant or claimants to the proceedings. The applicants shall be allowed to appear only for adducing their evidence as contemplated under Section 50 sub - clause (2) of the Land Acquisition Act so much so as to enable them to cross - examine the witnesses examined by the claimants and also advance arguments in the manner for that limited purpose.
Sections 50 (2), 18 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order I, Rule 10 Award of compensation for benefit of Municipal Corporation Bombay – Held Corporation not entitled to be made a party to the proceedings.
The matter was carried to. the Fun Bench and the questions that needed to be decided were (a) whether the company for whose benefit the land was acquired should be impleaded as a party under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure or (b) if such a company had only a right under Section 50 sub - clause (2) of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) for the purposes of the determination of the amount of compensation and should be allowed to appears only for the exercise of that right and (c) as to which decisions out of the said two decisions of the Supreme Court should the lower Courts follow. In dealing with these aspects of the matter, the Full Bench of the said Court scanned the several judgments of the other High Courts on the points and, finally the majority of the Judges of the Full Bench held that an application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as a party by the Company for whose benefit the land is acquired was not legally maintainable. The company was not an interested person so as to give it a right to become a party to the proceedings in reference. That the only right given to the company for whose benefit the land was being acquired was under Section 50 (2) viz., to appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determination of the account of compensation. That for the exercise of such a right, it was not necessary for was there any provision in the Act which would entitle the company to ask for being impleaded as a party under the provisions of Order I, Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code. In dealing with the question as to which of the two decisions of the Supreme Court should be lower Court follow, the majority of the Judges of the Fun Bench held that if there was a direct conflict between two decisions of coequal Benches and which cannot possibly be reconciled, the Courts must follow the judgment which appears to them to state the law accurately. Since the case law covering on all these points has been extensively dealt with by the Full Bench it is unnecessary to dwell upon this case law herein, suffice to state that I have considered the case law referred to in this decision at some length and I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the majority of the Judges of the Full Bench.
Court, hence direct that the applicants in this case be allowed to be on record of the case but not as a party defendant or claimants to the proceedings. The applicants shall be allowed to appear only for adducing their evidence as contemplated under Section 50 sub - clause (2) of the Land Acquisition Act so much so as to enable them to cross - examine the witnesses examined by the claimants and also advance arguments in the manner for that limited purpose. In the circumstances, Court make no order on the Chamber Summons. The Government leaders office with amend the proceedings by bringing on record the applicants herein but not as a party and or claimants to the proceedings.
Conflicting decision as equal Benches-Decision stating the law accurately to he followed.
2. The facts that give rise to this Chamber Summons are that the Special Land Acquisition Officer (I) issued notifications for acquisition of the land in question as the same was required for the benefit of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. In pursuance of the notices served India Hume Pipes Company Limited, who are the owner of the land and claimants in this reference appeared before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and were duly heard. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, however, served no notice on the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, perhaps because they had no proprietary interest in the land in question. Nonetheless, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, the applicants appeared before him and made some submissions. The Special Land Acquisition Officer then proceeded to make an award dt. 23rd Sept, 1986. Being aggrieved by the award, Indian Hume Pipes Co. Ltd., the claimants, sought a reference. This reference has come to be numbered as Land Acquisition Reference No. 25 of 1986. This reference was on Board on several occasions and came to be adjourned from time to time for various reasons. Since the matter came to be ripe for hearing, issues came to be framed on 23rd April, 1987 and the matter was proceeded with. To prove their case, claimant examined one witness. An application was then made by Mr. Thakore, Advocate who was then appearing for the Special Land Acquisition Officer that in view of the evidence given has to the quality of the land which was technical in character it was not possible for him to cross-examine the claimants witness in the absence of assistance from the expert from the Special Land Acquisition Officer's side, and the matter should be adjourned for the said purpose. With a view to ensure that the case of the Special Land Acquisition Officer should not go by default, and in view of the handicap of Mr. Thakore Advocate the matter was adjourned to enable the Special Land Acquisition Officer to secure necessary assistance so that the Special Land Acquisition Officer's Counsel Mr. Thakore could cross examine the claimants witness. Pending the further hearing the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the applicants) have now take on the present Chamber Summons to be made parties to the land reference. The Chamber Summoned is resisted by the claimants.
3. At the outset, it may be stated that there is no dispute on the point that the applicants are a "party interested" and as such would be entitled to make an application for being added as a party. The point, however, involved in this Chamber Summons whether the applicants should be joined as parties to this reference under O. 1, R. 10 of the Civil P.C. or as to whether they should appeared only to the extent which sections 50 sub. cl. of (2) of the Land Acquisition Act permits them to do so. The applicants have maintained that the applicants must be joined as parties under the provisions of O.1, R. 10 of the Civil P.C. Counsel for the Special Land Acquisition Officer has supported the applicants. The claimants have, on the other hand, maintained that the applicants can only appear to the extent of which section 50 sub cl. (2) of the Land Acquisition Act permit and no more. Case law has been cited on both sides in support of their argument and I shall hence straightway turn to the case law.
4. In the case of (Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum)1, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 886 the question of addition of parties arose in a suit proceeding. The ratio laid in down in the said is that (a) in a suit relating to property in order and that a person may be added as a party, he should have a direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest, in the subjec
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
