Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
Z.A. Haq, J.
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation – Applicant
Versus
Santosh Janba Warghane and Another – Non-Applicants
Civil Application (CAF) Nos. 672, 1123 of 2016 in F.A. ST. Nos. 19139, 20915 of 2016
Decided On : 27-10-2016
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 3(aa)-General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 3(31)-"Local Authority".-As per Section 3(31) of General Clauses Act, Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation is not a "local authority" as required by Section 3(aa) of Land Acquisition Act.
The definition of "local authority" as per Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 will have to be considered for the purposes of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the judgments given in the case of Valjibhai Muljibhai Soneji and another v. State of Bombay (now Gujarat) and others and in the case of Union of India and others v. R. C. Jain and others will be applicable. Applying the ratio of the above judgments, it has to be held that the Corporation is not "local authority" as it cannot be said to be "local authority" as per Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 or a town planning authority as required by Section 3(aa) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 3(aa), (b), (e)-Right to participate in land acquisition proceedings.-Any body or authority, not falling within expression "local authority" or "company" have no right to participate in proceedings before Collector or Reference Court or to file an appeal.
Considering the proposition laid down in the judgment given in the case of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (Dead) by LRs. and others, any body or authority which does not fall within the expression "local authority" or "company" will not have the right to participate in the proceedings before the Collector or the reference Court or to file an appeal as of right. The body or corporation will be covered by the expression "person interested" only if it is a "local authority" or "company" as per Section 3(aa) or Section 3(e) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 3(aa), (b), (e), 18(1), 23, 50(1), (2) and 54-Appeal under Section 54.-Corporation, being not a party in proceedings before Collector or Reference Court, has no right to file appeal against enhancement of compensation under Section 54 of Act.
It is well established that the right of appeal is a statutory right. The appeal can be filed as of right by the parties to the proceedings in which the judgment/ order, which is challenged, is passed. Apart from the parties to the proceedings, a person who is affected by the judgment/decree/order and who is not party to the proceedings in which that judgment/decree/order is passed, may seek leave to file appeal and such person is permitted by the Appellate Court to file appeal after it is satisfied that the person seeking leave is affected by the judgment/decree/order.
A person who is not party to the proceedings in which judgment/decree/ order, which is challenged in appeal is passed, cannot file appeal as of right. The Corporation is neither "local authority" nor "company" and therefore, it has no right to participate in the proceedings before the Collector or the reference Court. It is unexplained why the Corporation has not taken any steps to intervene in the proceedings before the reference Court and to seek permission for participating in the proceedings before the reference Court. The right of appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is the statutory right and in the facts of the present case, the Corporation does not automatically get the right to file appeal.
Z.A. Haq, J.
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. The Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation has filed civil applications seeking leave to file appeal to challenge the award passed by the reference Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. The agricultural lands owned by the respondents/claimants in these two matters were acquired pursuant to the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After undertaking the prescribed exercise as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 23rd February, 2001 and 10th December, 2001, respectively. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, the landowners requested for reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was accordingly made. In one reference proceedings, the State of Maharashtra through Collector, Wardha and Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Wardha and in other reference proceedings State of Maharashtra through Collector, Yavatmal and Executive Engineer, Medium Project Division, Yavatmal were impleaded. V.I.D.C. was not party in the proceedings. The reference Court passed award on 9th December, 2011 and 17th January, 2013 respectively and enhanced the amount of compensation. V.I.D.C. has filed appeals challenging the above awards and these applications are filed seeking leave to file appeal. According to V.I.D.C., it was necessary party in the reference proceedings as it is acquiring body and is required to pay the enhanced amount of compensation.
4. The applications filed by V.I.D.C. seeking leave to file appeal are opposed by the claimants. Shri A.L. Deshpande and Shri K.S. Narwade, advocates representing the claimants in these appeals have submitted that the claim of V.I.D.C. that it is acquiring body and is necessary party to the reference proceedings is unacceptable in law. The submission on behalf of the claimants is that V.I.D.C. is a statutory Corporation constituted under the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1997") and the provisions of the Act of 1997 does not give any power to the Corporation to acquire lands for the projects and on the contrary section 26 of the Act of 1997 shows that the power to acquire lands is with the State Government. It is submitted that the Corporation will not fall in the expression "Local Authority" as defined under section 3(aa) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the expression "Company" as defined under section 3(e) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and therefore, it will not have any right of audience or participation in the proceedings either before the Collector or before the reference Court as only "Local Authority" or "Company" has this right as per section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is submitted that as the Corporation does not have any right to participate in the proceedings before the Collector and/or reference Court, it cannot file and maintain appeal as of right to challenge the award passed by the reference Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
In First Appeal (Stamp) No. 20915/2015, copy of communication issued by the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) on 10.10.2011 and addressed to the reference Court is placed on record. In this communication, it is stated that the Joint Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department has taken decision that appeal need not be filed and therefore, the amount of Rs. 21,18,051/- was being deposited before the reference Court. Relying on this communication, the learned Advocate for the claimants has submitted that the application filed by the V.I.D.C. seeking leave to file appeal has to be dismissed.
5. The points which fall for consideration in this appeal are required to be examined keeping in view the established principles of law regarding right of appeal. The relevant provisions are section 54 of
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
