Godavari Marathwada Patbandhare Vikas vs State of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2008 Supreme(Bom) 1501

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND S.A, BOBDE, J.
Godavari Marathwada Patbandhare Vikas – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.310 OF 2008
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 7654 OF 2004
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 2006
Decided ON: 16TH OCTOBER 2008

Advocates appeared:
Mr. T B Bhosale for the Appellant.
Mrs. S.S. Bhende, Assistant Government Pleader, for the State.
Mr. P N Joshi for the Claimants-Respondents.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXII, Rule 10-Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 28-A-Enhancement of compensation-Responsibility of corporation.-Under Order XXII, Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Code, a party is entitled to assign its rights in a legal proceedings to a third party during pendency of the original proceedings or even after passing of a decree in appellate proceedings. Of course, this has to be done with the leave of the Court. Once the leave of the Court is granted, the proceedings can be continued by an assignee. The stage of the proceedings is irrelevant in so far as other requirements of these provisions are satisfied and the leave of the Court is obtained. The Corporation has come into existence by virtue of legislative Act and not a contractual act. The corporation would be entitled to be impleaded into the proceedings from the date of its existence and would be entitled to participate in the proceedings which are instituted thereafter or at the stage where they are pending. In the present case, the petitions under Section 28-A of the Act have been filed in the year 1995 while the corporation came into existence on 1st October, 1998 while the Award has been made before the Collector subsequent to its coming into existence i.e. on 20th September, 2003. Thus, we are unable to accept the contention of the respondents that the corporation is neither a necessary nor a proper party and cannot participate in the proceedings merely because it came into existence subsequently. As it has taken over all the rights and liabilities of the erstwhile department and it would be the exclusive responsibility of the corporation to pay enhanced compensation, it has every right to participate in the proceeding.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 28-A-Compensation under-Enhancement of.-While considering the case for enhancement of compensation under Section 28-A of the Act, the SLAO is expected to appreciate the evidence and has to examine whether the lands of the claimants before him are entitled to similar or identical compensation as awarded to the owners of the land by the Reference Court or any other Court of competent jurisdiction. The Scheme of Section 28-A is that the Collector on receipt of an application under sub-section (1) would conduct an enquiry after giving notice to the interested persons and giving them reasonable opportunity of being heard, would make the award. Proceedings Section 28-A are for re-determination of compensation by the SLAO himself.
Maharashtra Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation Act, 1998 - Person interested-Compensation-Determination of.-The body, Corporation or Company for whose benefit the land has been acquired being a proper party would be entitled to the notice and impleadment in the proceedings before the authorities and reference Court and even the appellate Court, the appeal being continuation of the original proceedings. Merely because the Corporation is a successor or is created legally or technically on a date subsequent to the pronouncement of the award by itself cannot be a ground for holding that the said Corporation or company would not be entitled to the similar right and obligations as are contemplated in acquisition laws.

JUDGMENT

SWATANTER KUMAR, J.

Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation, a statutory body established under the provisions of Maharashtra Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation Act No. 23 of 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”) has filed the present Appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the Order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29th November 2005 dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Corporation praying for setting aside of the Award made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nashik (hereinafter referred to as the “SLAO”) in case of Proposal No. 30 of 1982 dated 20th September 2003 passed under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the Writ Petition, the Corporation had also prayed in the alternative that if the application of the Claimant, Respondent No.2, is found to be within limitation, then the matter be remanded back to the Collector for disposal on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Corporation.

2. The facts giving rise to the present Appeal fall in a very narrow compass. The Appropriate Government issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) which was published on 31st March 1983. In furtherance to this Notification, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 31st October 1985. The lands were acquired from the land owners and possession thereafter was taken on 10th December 1985. The SLAO made his Award on 30th November 1987 under Section 11 of the Act. The Award of the Collector was challenged by the Claimants by filing Petitions under Section 18 of the Act. These References were referred by the SLAO to the Court of competent jurisdiction. The Joint District Judge, Nashik, vide his judgment dated 7th April 1995 passed in Land Reference No.500 of 1989 enhancing the compensation payable to the Claimants at the rate of Rs.24,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.

3. Some of the Claimants who had not preferred References under Section 18 of the Act filed Petitions before the SLAO under Section 28A of the Act. These very Claimants had even filed a Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 1270 of 2002 which was decided by this Court vide its Order dated 3rd May 2002 requiring the Government to hear the Petitions in accordance with law. The Writ Petition was disposed of with direction to decide the Application under Section 28A of the Act within six months. The Applications filed by the Petitioners under Section 28A of the Act were finally disposed of by the SLAO vide judgment dated 20th September 2003 enhancing the compensation and placing the Claimants at parity with the judgment of the Joint District Judge, Nashik dated 7th April 1995.

4. Aggrieved by the Award of the SLAO dated 20th September 2003, the Corporation preferred Writ Petitions before this Court which came to be dismissed vide Order dated 29th November 2005 giving rise to the present Appeals. The Corporation had filed different Writ Petitions i.e. 18 against different Claimants. Separate Appeals have been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in each of those Writ Petitions. Thus, by this Judgment, we will dispose of the 18 Appeals preferred by the Corporation challenging the correctness and legality of the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 29th November 2005.

5. Writ Petitions filed by the Corporation were primarily dismissed by the learned Single Judge on a very short ground. It will be useful to refer to the relevant part of the impugned judgment. The same reads as under :-

“The possession of the land was taken by the government on 10.12.85 and an award has been declared by the SLAO on 30.10.87. Thereafter reference was made by some of the affected persons u/s. 18 and the same was decided by the Civil Court by passing an order and judgment on 7.4.95. Admittedly, the petitioner has come into existence only on 1st October 1998 as mentioned in para 1 of the petition. Thus the petition

Click Here to Read the rest of this document