Gujarat High Court

Achyut Chinubhai vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 17 January, 2024

Author: Sunita Agarwal

Bench: Sunita Agarwal

                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




      C/SCA/26641/2022                                        ORDER DATED: 17/01/2024

                                                                                              undefined




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

         R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 26641 of 2022
                               With
          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 26642 of 2022

==========================================================
                             ACHYUT CHINUBHAI
                                  Versus
                     SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
 for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
MS HETAL PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
           and
           HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

                        Date : 17/01/2024
                        COMMON ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. Both the above noted writ petitions connected

with Special Civil Application No.6389 of 2014, which

has been decided by us on 16.01.2024, are arising out

of the orders passed by the City Civil Court at

Ahmedabad in Land Acquisition Reference No.1 of 2014

and Land Acquisition Reference No.2 of 2014. The

orders impugned are the orders of impleadment of the

respondent No.4 herein as applicant in the above

noted Land Acquisition Reference. Respondent No.4

herein, who is petitioner No.1 in Special Civil

Application No.6389 of 2014, claims to be the tenant

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26641/2022 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2024

undefined

of the property in question which was acquired and

with respect to which the reference under Section 18

of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of

compensation has been preferred by the original

owners, namely the petitioners herein.

2. In the connected writ petition, namely Special

Civil Application No.6389 of 2014, we, having gone

through the matter, have come to the conclusion that

the petitioner No.1 therein, namely respondent No.4

herein, cannot be said to be "person interested" in

the property in question within the meaning of

Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. We have

noted that at no stage of the proceedings of

acquisition, the respondent No.4 (petitioner No.1

therein) had ever claimed any right, title or

interest in the acquired land.

3. We have also noted that an eviction decree for

eviction of the respondent No.4 from the property in

question had been passed on 31.03.2011 in a suit

filed by the petitioners herein, namely H.R.P. Suit

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26641/2022 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2024

undefined

No.1708 of 1998 in the Small Causes Court at

Ahmedabad. The appeal filed by the respondent No.4

against the eviction decree has also been dismissed

vide judgment and order dated 23.11.2023. We may

further note from the judgment and order dated

23.11.2023 passed by the appellate Court in Regular

Civil Appeal Nos.54 of 2011 and 57 of 2011 that apart

from the findings on issue No.3 about sub-letting of

the property in question by the respondent No.4 -

tenant herein, all other issues find favour in favour

of the landlords, namely the petitioners herein.

4. It is noteworthy that in the impugned orders

dated 19.09.2022 and 19.12.2019 for allowing

impleadment application for respondent No.4 herein,

it was noted that the applicant - respondent No.4 had

filed H.R.P. Suit No.1919 of 2006 in the Small Causes

Court No.4 wherein vide judgment and order dated

31.03.2013, the plaintiff - respondent No.4 herein

has been declared as tenant. The copy of the said

decision has not been brought on record by respondent

No.4 herein. Moreover, the orders impugned wrongly

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26641/2022 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2024

undefined

record that appeal against the judgment and order

dated 31.03.2013 of the Small Causes Court has been

preferred by the affected parties in the shape of

Special Civil Application No.6389 of 2014 wherein

interim order dated 26.11.2014 has been passed

directing the parties to maintain status-quo qua the

possession and title pertaining to the property-in-

question.

5. We may record that the above referred fact noted

by the Small Causes Court in the orders impugned

dated 19.09.2022 and 19.12.2019 while allowing the

impleadment applications filed by respondent No.4 is

absolutely incorrect narration of the facts. The

correct facts are that the Special Civil Application

No.6389 of 2014 had been filed by the respondent No.4

himself along with two other persons claiming

themselves to be tenants of the property-in-question

seeking to challenge the award dated 30.10.2013

passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894, in the land acquisition proceedings pertaining

to the property-in-question. In Special Civil

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26641/2022 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2024

undefined

Application No.6389 of 2014 decided by us on

16.01.2024, no dispute pertaining to right, title or

interest of the petitioners therein, namely

respondent No.4 herein, with reference to the

property-in-question was subject matter of

consideration.

6. Moreover, by the order dated 16.01.2014, while

deciding Special Civil Application No.6389 of 2014,

we have noticed that the petitioner No.1 therein

(respondent No.4 herein) has taken the landlord for a

ride by moving frivolous applications/suits and writ

petitions before different Courts of law. The order

of the City Civil Court, subject matter of challenge

herein, is a demonstration of one such litigation

instituted by respondent No.4, who claims to have

been inducted as a tenant in the property in

question.

7. It seems that on the premise that the question

of right, title, interest and possession of the

respondent No.4 in the property in question is

subject matter of consideration in Special Civil

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26641/2022 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2024

undefined

Application No.6389 of 2014, the City Civil Court at

Ahmedabad has allowed the impleadment applications

permitting respondent No.4 to be impleaded as the

"interested party" in the land acquisition references

filed by the original owners seeking for enhancement

of compensation determined under the award dated

30.11.2013.

8. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex

Court in Ram Prakash Agarwal vs. Gopi Krishan (Dead

Through Lrs.) - 2013 (11) SCC 296, by the learned

counsel for petitioners herein to submit that a

person who has not made any application before the

Land Acquisition Collector for making reference under

Section 18 cannot get himself impleaded directly

before the Reference Court. The relevant paragraphs

18 to 20 of the said decision are being extracted

hereinunder :-

"18. The said case is required to be examined from another angle. Undoubtedly, the respondents did not make any application either under Section 18 or Section 30 of the Act, 1894 to the Land Acquisition Collector. The jurisdiction of the Reference Court, vis- àvis "persons interested" has been explained by this Court in Shyamali Das v. Illa

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26641/2022 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2024

undefined

Chowdhry & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 215, holding that the Reference Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain any application of pro interesse suo, or in the nature thereof. The Court held as under:

"The Act is a complete code by itself. It provides for remedies not only to those whose lands have been acquired but also to those who claim the awarded amount or any apportionment thereof. A Land Acquisition Judge derives its jurisdiction from the order of reference. It is bound thereby. His jurisdiction is to determine adequacy and otherwise of the amount of compensation paid under the award made by the Collector". Thus holding that, "It is not within his domain to entertain any application of pro interesse suo or in the nature thereof."

18.1 The plea of the appellant therein, stating that the title dispute be directed to be decided by the Reference Court itself, since the appellant was not a person interested in the award, was rejected by this Court, observing that the Reference Court does not have the power to enter into an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC.

19. In Ajjam Linganna & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer, RDO, Nizamabad & Ors., (2002) 9 SCC 426, this court made observations to the effect that it is not open to the parties to apply directly to the Reference Court for impleadment, and to seek enhancement under Section 18 for compensation.

19.1 In Prayag Upnivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. Allahabad Vikas Pradhikaran & Anr., (2003) 5 SCC 561, this Court held as under:

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26641/2022 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2024

undefined

"It is well established that the Reference Court gets jurisdiction only if the matter is referred to it under Section 18 or Section 30 of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer and if the Civil Court has got the jurisdiction and authority only to decide the objections referred to it. The Reference Court cannot widen the scope of its jurisdiction or decide matters which are not referred to it."

19.2 While deciding the said case, the Court placed reliance on the judgments in Parmatha Nath Malik Bahadur v. Secretary of State, AIR 1930 PC 64; and Mohammed Hasnuddin v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 404. (See also: Kothamasu Kanakarathamma & Ors. v.

State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1965 SC304).

19.3 It is evident from the above, that a person who has not made an application before the Land Acquisition Collector, for making a reference under Section 18 or 30 of the Act, 1894, cannot get himself impleaded directly before the Reference Court.

20. In view of the above, the legal issues involved herein, can be summarised as under:-

(i) An application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC cannot be filed by a person who was not initially a party to the proceedings;

(ii) Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC can be exercised by the Court to redress only such a grievance, for which no remedy is provided for under the CPC;

(iii) In the event that an order has been obtained from the Court by playing fraud upon it, it is always open to the Court to recall the said order on the application of the person aggrieved, and such power can also be

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26641/2022 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2024

undefined

exercised by the appellate court;

(iv) Where the fraud has been committed upon a party, the court cannot investigate such a factual issue, and in such an eventuality, a party has the right to get the said judgment or order set aside, by filing an independent suit.

(v) A person aggrieved may maintain an application before the Land Acquisition Collector for reference under Section 18 or 30 of the Act, 1894, but cannot make an application for impleadment or apportionment before the Reference Court."

9. For the above noted facts as also the detailed

facts narrated in the judgment and order dated

16.01.2024 passed by us in Special Civil Application

No.6389 of 2014, we find that respondent No.4 is

neither a necessary nor a proper party in the

proceeding of reference under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 instituted by the original

owners. From any angle, respondent No.4 cannot be

said to be a "person interested" having any interest

towards compensation of the property in question,

except to somehow retain his illegal possession in

the property in question.