Mysore Housing Board vs Syed Afzal Ahmed Qadri and Others

V.S. Malimath, J.—This revision petition is by the Mysore Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Bidar, on I.A. No. 1, dated 7th December, 1972.

The lands bearing Section Nos. 10 and 11 were notified for acquisition by the issue of a notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated 4th December, 1964. It is stated that the lands were for a public purpose, to wit for extension of Bidar City. After considering the report and the objections, a final notification was issued u/s 6 of the Act under the notification dated 26-5-1965 published in the Mysore Gazette dated 17-6-1965. The said notification states that the lands are needed for a public purpose, to wit for extension of Bidar City. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a compensation of Rupees 73,151-50 to the claimants-Respondents 1 to 7 herein. On a reference made u/s 18 of the Act at the instance of the claimants, the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 4,32,451/- by the Civil Judge, Bidar. That award was challenged by way of appeal in M.F.A. 374 of 1964 by the City Municipality, Bidar and by the State of Mysore in M.F.A. 399 of 1964 before this Court. This Court by order dated 12-4-1971 set aside the order passed by the Civil Judge and remitted the case back to him for fresh disposal in accordance with law. It is after remand by this Court that the Petitioner viz., the Board filed an application on 18-9-1972 praying that it be impleaded as a party and permitted to lead evidence before the learned Civil Judge. That application having been opposed, the Court has passed the order under Revision rejecting the Petitioner''s application. Hence this revision petition by the Mysore Housing Board.

Sri. G.B. Raikar learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the learned Civil Judge was not right in rejecting the application made under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC He also contended that at any rate, the Petitioner should have been permitted to participate in the proceedings for the purpose of leading evidence to enable the Court to arrive at a proper decision in regard to the determination of the mount of compensation payable to the claimants.

The learned Civil Judge has come to the conclusion that the lands were acquired at the request of the City Municipality, Bidar for the extension of the City of Bidar. The learned Civil Judge has come to the conclusion that it is in pursuance of the resolution made by the City Municipality. Bidar dated 20-11-1964 requesting the Deputy Commissioner. Bidar for acquisition of the lands that the Deputy Commissioner. Bidar initiated land acquisition proceeding and issued a notification u/s 4 of the Act He has recorded a finding to the effect that the Mysore Housing Board was not the requisitioning authority for the acquisition of the suit lands, that therefore, it is (not) entitled to be impleaded as a party under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC and further held that it is not also entitled to the privilege conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act. The material produced in this justifies the conclusions of the learned Civil Judge. The preliminary notification as well as the final notification issued under the Act states that the lands were needed for a public purpose to wit for extension of Bidar City. The extension of the Bidar City is undoubtedly one of the objects in which the City Municipality, Bidar is interested. The notifications do not show that the lands are acquired for the Board or for serving the objects of the Board. The other material produced in this case indicates that it is the City Municipality of Bidar that has passed the resolution for initiating the proceedings for the purpose of extension of the City of Bidar.

It is in Form No. ''A'' that the pity Municipality, Bidar gave the necessary particulars for the acquisition of the lands. Col. No. 6 refers to the authority for whom the land is required to be acquired. In the said column, the name of the City of Municipality, Bidar has been shown as the authority which requires the lands in question. In another clause pertaining to the person or authority liable to pay compensation, if requisitioned for a company, local authority or industry; it has been mentioned as ''City Municipality, Bidar''. The agreement dated 20-3-1965 also shows that it is the City Municipality, Bidar that took possession of the lands acquired. In none of these documents, the Mysore Housing Board comes into picture. The material on record satisfactorily establishes that it is the City Municipality, Bidar that has made the requisition to the Deputy Commissioner. Bidar to acquire these lands representing the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar to acquire these lands representing the Deputy Commissioner that it is out of its own funds that money would be paid towards the compensation amount. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Court below has committed any error when it came to the conclusion that the, Mysore Housing Board is neither necessary nor a proper party. The application Med by the Petitioner is highly belated. The previous history of the case which I have narrated above indicates that at no earlier stage did the Board evince any interest in the proceedings. It is only after the case was remanded by this Court in M.F.A. Nos. 399 and 374 of 1964 filed by the State of Mysore and the City Municipality. Bidar, that the Petitioner (Board) has come forward with an application for being impleaded as a party to these proceedings. The Court below was in my opinion, right in rejecting the Petitioner''s application for its being impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC as it is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings.

Mr. Raikar strenuously contended that the Petitioner is at any rate entitled to lead evidence as provided by Sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act Sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Ad provides:

In any proceeding held before a Deputy Commissioner or Court in such cases, the local authority or Company concerned may appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation.

In order to understand as to who is the local authority or the Company concerned contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act, it is necessary to go to Sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the Act which provides:

Where the provisions of this Act are put in force for the purpose of acquiring land at the cost of any fund con trolled or managed by a local authority or of any company, the charges of and incidental to such acquisition shall be defrayed from or by such fund or company.

The reference to the local authority or company in Sub-section (2) is, to the local authority or company referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the Act. It is not every local authority or company that can claim the privilege of leading evidence in land acquisition cases under Sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act. It is only that local authority or company which is referred to in Section 50(1) of the Act that can exercise the privilege conferred under Sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act. It is only if the land is acquired at the cost of the fund controlled or managed by the local authority or the company concerned, that such local authority or company would be entitled to lead evidence as provided under Sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act In order to determine as to whether the local authority or the company is entitled to lead evidence under Sub-section (2) of Section 50, what is to be ascertained is whether the land is sought to be acquired out of the funds controlled or managed by such local authority or company. The evidence on record in this case clearly establishes that the lands were acquired at the cost of the City Municipality Bidar. There is no evidence on record from which any inference is possible that the lands were acquired at the cost of any fund controlled or managed by the Mysore Housing Board could not therefore claim the privilege conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act in regard to the matter of leading evidence for the purpose of determining the compensation.

It is, however, urged by Sri. G.B. Raikar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that he is in possession of material which, if produced before Court, would establish that it is out of the funds of the Mysore Housing Board that the lands are sought to be acquired. As already mentioned, the Petitioner has not at all taken care to participate in these proceedings for nearly 7 years and it is only for the first time in 1972 after the case was remanded to the lower Court by this Court that the present application was filed by the Petitioner. It is not the case of the Petitioner that the Court below refused to accept the documents accept the documents which the Petitioner sought to produce before the Court. In these circumstances, I will not be justified in according to the request of Mr. Raikar to permit the Petitioner to lead further evidence in this case at this stage.

For the reasons stated above, this revision petition fails and is dismissed. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their respective costs.