Madras High Court
Union Of India Rep. By The vs V.Kumaravelu on 25 November, 2021
A.S.No.603/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
A.S.No.603/2016 and CMP.Nos.16237, 17625/2016, 3920,
3921/2017 and 6772/2021
1. Union of India rep. by the
Secretary to Government (Rev),
Government of Pondicherry.
2. The Deputy Collector (Rev)
(North)-cum-Land Acquisition Officer,
Pondicherry.
3. The Defence Estate Officer,
Defence Estate Office,
Madras Circle, 306 Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. ... Appellants
(3rd appellant impleaded as proposed party
vide order dated 30.01.2017 made in
CMP.No.19960/2016)
-vs-
1. V.Kumaravelu
2. Sivaram Alva ... Respondents
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.603/2016
Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act
against the order dated 29.03.2016 in L.A.O.P.No.5/2016 on the file of
the learned II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry.
For Appellants : Ms.N.Mala,
1 and 2 Government Pleader,
Pondicherry
For 3rd appellant : Mr.R.Sankaranarayanan,
Additional Solicitor General of
India assisted by
Mr.M.Aravind Kumar,
Senior Central Government
Panel Counsel
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.R.Singaravelan,
Senior Counsel for Ms.B.Ramya
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was pronounced by T.RAJA, J.)
This Appeal Suit has been directed against the award dated
29.03.2016 passed in L.A.O.P.No.5/2016 by the learned II Additional
District Judge, Pondicherry.
2. On an earlier occasion i.e. on 22.11.2021, this Court has
passed the following Order:
''This appeal has been brought by the Union of India
represented by the Secretary to Government (Rev),
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.603/2016
Government of Pondicherry, the Deputy Collector (Rev)
(North) cum Land Acquisition Officer, Pondicherry and the
Defence Estate Officer, Madras Circle, the appellants herein
assailing the correctness of the impugned award dated
29.3.2016 passed by the learned Second Additional District
Judge, Pondicherry in L.A.O.P.No.5 of 2016 granting a total
compensation of Rs.19,59,04,210/- payable to the land owners,
the respondents herein in respect of the acquisition of two
parcels of land situated in R.S.Nos.117 and 124/2 at
Ariankuppam Revenue Village, Pondicherry to an extent of
344858 sq.ft., and 197230.8 sq.ft., respectively for setting up of
Coast Guard station, with a further direction to pay the
statutory interest as provided under Section 28 of the Land
Acquisition Act with reduction of Rs.39,09,093/-, since that
amount was already paid.
2. Mr.R.Sankaranarayanan, learned Additional Solicitor
General of India appearing for the impleaded third appellant,
assailing the impugned award, placing three-fold submissions,
contended that when the Defence Estates Officer being the
interested and necessary party was not impleaded before the
Reference Court as a necessary party, the impugned award
cannot be sustained and the appeal necessarily has to be
remanded back to the Reference Court for hearing the parties
afresh on this score. In support of his submissions, he has
placed reliance on the following judgments:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.603/2016
(i) Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., v. Special Tahsildar
(Land Acquisition), Neyveli and others, (1995) 1 SCC 221
(SC);
(ii) Delhi Development Authority v. Bhola Nath Sharma
(Dead) by LR's and others, (2011) 2 SCC 54 (SC);
(iii) The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition and 2 others v. M.Mahalingam, 2010 SCC
Online Mad 3009 (DB).
3. Continuing his arguments, learned Additional
Solicitor General submitted that in Neyveli Lignite Corporation
Ltd., v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neyveli and
others, (1995) 1 SCC 221, the Apex Court has mandated that
the requisitioning body/interested party should have been
impleaded as one of the necessary parties by the landowners
while seeking for enhancement of compensation. In the
absence of the beneficiary who ultimately is to bear the higher
compensation, no complete and effectual determination of
binding just and proper compensation to the acquired land
would be made. The denial of the right to a person interested is
in negation of fair and just procedure offending Article 14 of
the Constitution. Again placing reliance on the judgment in
Delhi Development Authority v. Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) by
LR's and others, (2011) 2 SCC 54, learned Additional Solicitor
General submitted that the Apex Court has held that the
Reference Court should implead the interested party for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.603/2016
purpose of determining the amount of compensation payable to
the landowners. This Court also in the Land Acquisition
Officer and Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition and 2 others v.
M.Mahalingam, 2010 SCC Online Mad 3009 has also held that
in the absence of the beneficiary for whose benefit the land was
acquired, the Reference Court cannot award compensation, for
the simple reason that the authority for whose benefit the land
was acquired ought to have been impleaded as party
respondent in the LAOP proceeding, as without making the
interested person as a party, there cannot be a complete and
effectual determination. Secondly, it was also argued that the
Reference Court also fell in error in determining the
compensation on square feet basis as, when large tract of land
is sought to be acquired, it should be on acreage basis. In
support of his submission, he also placed reliance on the
judgment of the Apex Court in Indumati Chitaley v.
Government of India and another, AIR 1996 SC 531. Thirdly,
the Reference Court also attempted to compare the lands which
are incapable of comparison, as they are all located far away
from the lands acquired. Finally concluding his arguments,
learned Additional Solicitor General pleaded that when the
land in question was acquired in the year 2007 and the award
was also passed on 30.9.2008, after sleeping over for a long
time, the claimants have filed the claim petitions only on
29.2.2016 that were also taken up. But, amazingly, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.603/2016
Reference Court has also passed the impugned award within a
month's time on 29.3.2016 that raises an eyebrow on
everybody.
4. Opposing the above prayer, Mr.R.Singaravelan,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second
respondent/landowner submitted that the land in question has
been acquired for setting up of a Coast Guard station in a prime
location at Pondicherry. Although the award was passed on
30.9.2008, challenging the meagre amount of compensation
erroneously fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the matter
was taken up to the Reference Court and meeting out the
parameters of speedy justice, when the impugned award was
passed on 29.3.2016, it is not open to them to say that the
Reference Court has expeditiously disposed of the matter.
Secondly, the owner of the land, after losing the land, has
attained the age of 80 and he may not even be able to see the
fruits of the award if the matter is remanded back to the
Reference Court at this stage. Even the prayer made by the
third appellant for remanding the matter also is not going to
serve any purpose for the reason that they have relied upon
only two documents and no fresh documents were filed. When
the said documents have been considered by the Land
Acquisition Officer and they do not have any other document
to be placed before the Reference Court as well as before this
Court, the prayer made by the third appellant deserves no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.603/2016
acceptance.
5. Since the land measuring 6-65-10 Hectares in
Ariyankuppam village, Pondicherry has been acquired for
setting up of a Coast Guard station, we are of the view that the
Defence Estate Officer being the interested party has to pay the
just compensation, ought to have been impleaded as party
respondent before the Reference Court, which has not been
done. When the Apex Court in Neyveli Lignite Corporation
and in Delhi Development Authority cases cited supra has
repeatedly held that in the absence of the beneficiary who is
ultimately to bear higher compensation should be impleaded as
necessary party before the Reference Court, without
impleading the requisitioning body, the authority for whose
benefit the land was acquired, there cannot be a complete and
effectual determination of compensation. Therefore, we
propose to remand the matter back to the Reference Court on
the following twin conditions:-
(i) Subject to deposit of the entire award amount by the
appellants before the Reference Court, the second
respondent will be permitted to withdraw a sum of
Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees ten crores only).
(ii)On compliance of the condition (i) above, the Reference
Court will be directed to dispose of the matter on merits
and in accordance with law within a period of two
months time as agreed by both parties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.603/2016
6. However, Mr.R.Sankaranarayan, learned Additional
Solicitor General appearing for the third appellant sought two
days time for taking written instructions.
In view thereof, list the matter on 25.11.2021.
3. Accordingly, when the matter was called to-day,
Mr.R.Sankaranarayanan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India
assisted by Mr.M.Aravind Kumar, learned Senior Central Government
Panel Counsel appearing for the 3rd appellant, on instructions
submitted that the 3rd appellant is having some difficulty in depositing
the award amount for the reason that they have a fair chance of
success before the trial court.
4. At the outset, a perusal of the records would go to show
that this Court, by an order dated 05.09.2017, without prejudice to
the contentions of both the parties, has granted stay thereby directing
the appellants to deposit 25% of the enhanced compensation awarded
by the Reference Court to the credit of LAOP.No.5/2016 on the file of
the learned II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry and that the said
interim order was also duly complied with. Subsequently, it also
appears that CMP.No.251/2018 was filed to withdraw the said amount
by the landowners and by an order dated 13.09.2019, this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.603/2016
directed the learned II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry to permit
the land owners in this appeal to withdraw Rs.1,00,00,000/- from 25%
of the total amount deposited before the Court. Now the balance
amount lies in the credit of L.A.O.P.No.5/2016 on the file of the
learned II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry/Reference Court. It is
also pertinent to mention here that after hearing the parties, since it
was found that the beneficiary respondent/Requisitioning body,
namely, The Defence Estate Officer, Defence Estate Office, Madras
Circle, 306 Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018, has not been
impleaded as a party in the Reference Court, this Court has impleaded
the Defence Estate Officer as 3rd appellant in the present Appeal Suit in
the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
decisions relied on in M/s.Neyvely Lignite Corporation Limited v.
Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neyveli and others (1995)
1 SCC 221 and Delhi Development Authority v. Bhola Nath
Sharma (Dead) by LR's and others (2011) 2 SCC 54 (SC) holding
that the requisitioning body/interested party should have been
impleaded as one of the necessary parties by the landowners while
seeking for enhancement of compensation. In the absence of the
beneficiary who ultimately is to bear the higher compensation, no
complete and effectual determination of binding just and proper
compensation to the acquired land would be made. The denial of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.603/2016
right to a person interested is in negation of fair and just procedure
offending Article 14 of the Constitution.
5. Be that as it may, since the Reference Court has ordered
payment of Rs.19,59,04,210/- payable to the land owners, in all
fairness, when they have questioned the correctness of the impugned
award, they are liable to deposit the entire amount before going into
the merits of the case. As we have indicated in our earlier order dated
22.11.2021 cited above, the Reference Court has to undertake a fresh
exercise to study and peruse the documentary evidence and also the
oral evidence to be adduced by both the parties. Therefore, it is
unnecessary at this juncture to prejudge who will be the winner before
the Reference Court. Hence, the deposit of the entire award amount
does not mean that the appellants are going to have a tough time
ahead before the Reference Court.
6. In view of all the above, the judgment and decree of the
Reference Court/II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry dated
29.03.2016 in L.A.O.P.No.5/2016 are set aside and the matter is
ordered to be remanded back to the Reference Court on twin
conditions, namely, (i) subject to the deposit of the entire award
amount by the appellants before the Reference Court less the amount
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.603/2016
already deposited, within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Order and on such deposit, the 2nd respondent
is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten
Crores Only) and (ii) on compliance of the above condition, the
Reference Court is directed to dispose of the matter on merits and in
accordance with law, within a period of two months thereafter as
agreed by both parties.
7. While disposing of the L.A.O.P.No.5/2016 afresh, the
Reference Court is directed to implead the Defence Estate Officer,
Defence Estate Office, Madras Circle, 306 Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai-600 018, as party respondent in L.A.O.P.No.5/2016. The
Reference Court is further directed to receive the documents filed by
both sides in this Appeal as well as the other documents to be filed, if
they so desire. Reference Court is also directed to afford sufficient
opportunity to both sides to adduce oral and documentary evidence.
8. With the above observations and directions, the Appeal
Suit is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
(T.R.J.,) (D.B.C.J.,)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.603/2016
tsi 25.11.2021
T.RAJA, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
tsi
To
The II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry.
A.S.No.603/2016
25.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.603/2016
5. The relevant portion is extracted here under:
''11. .....The beneficiary, i.e. the local authority or
company, a co-op. Society registered under the relevant
State law, or statutory authority is a person interested to
determine just and proper compensation for the acquired
land and is an aggrieved person. The beneficiary has the
right to be heard by the Collector or the Court. If the
compensation is enhanced it is entitled to canvass its
correctness by filing an appeal or defend the award of the
Collector. If it is not made a party, it is entitled to seek
leave of the Court and file the appeal against the enhanced
award and decree of the civil court under Section 26 or of
the judgment and decree under Section 54 or is entitled to
file writ petition under Art.226 and assail its legality or
correctness. When the award made under Section 11 of
the Collector is vitiated by fraud, collusion or corruption,
the beneficiary is entitled to challenge it in the writ petition
apart from the settled law that the conduct of the Collector
or Civil Judge is amenable to disciplinary enquiry and
appropriate action. These are very valuable and salutary
rights. Moreover, in the language of Order 1, Rule 10 CPC
in the absence of the beneficiary who ultimately is to bear
the higher compensation, no complete and effectual
determination of binding just and proper compensation to
the acquired land would be made. So it is concomitantly a
proper party if not a necessary party to the proceedings
under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. The denial of the right to a
person interested is in negation of fair and just procedure
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.603/2016
offending Art.14 of the Constitution.''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
