AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The facts of the case are these. Land measuring 403 Kanal 13 Marias was acquired by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act for the
petitioner. The Collector made the award on 12121998 awarding different rate of compensation for different kinds of land. It appears the
Collector made reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be called as ""the act') and the Addl. District Judge,
Kishtwar by an exparte award dated 30091994 enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs. 45,000 per kanal. The case of the appellant is that they
got the knowledge of the exparte award on 16051995 and on 02061995 applied for setting aside the exparte award. The ground for setting aside
the award was twofold that the appellant was neither impleaded as party nor has otherwise notice of the proceedings. This application was
rejected by the learned Addl. District Judge, mainly on the ground that the appellant had been summoned through Collector, DulHasti Hydro
Electric Project whose office is situate within the premises of the Project. Therefore, they had notice of the award and the decree. Since they did
not chose to participate in the proceedings, therefore, there was no option for the court but to pass the exparte award. However, the question
whether the appellants were interested parties and therefore, had to be impleaded in the proceedings has not been decided by the court.
The contention of Mr. J.P. Singh appearing for the appellant is that merely becaise the office of the Collector is located in the premises of the
Project, it does not follow that the appellants were not necessary parties to the proceedings or that since the Collector was party, therefore, they
are deemed to have been impleaded through him. Notice of the proceedings iv a party, he argued presupposes its' impleadment and since the
appellants are interested party and yet they were not impleaded the question of summoning them through the Collector, according to him does not
arise.
Mr. Koul appearing for the respondents argued that what is important is information of the proceedings to the interested parties and the
prejudice suffered, if any, by the appellant. Since the appellant did not chose to appear before the reference court, it is evident that they were not
prejudiced. Even otherwise since the proceeding had concluded finally the question whether the appellant ought to have been impleaded is not
germane.
The question involved is whether Dul Hasti Project for whom the property was acquired is a person interested. This question is no longer
resintegra for this court in view of the law laid down in M/s Noyveky Lignite Corp Ltd. Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) (AIR 1995 SC
1004) holding that:
The consistent thread that runs through all the decisions of this court starting from Himalayan Tiles case (AIR 1980 SC 1118) is that the
beneficiary i.e. local authority or company, a coop 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. It flows from it that 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 filling 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 article 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 inquiry and
appropriate action. These are very valuable and salutary rights. Moreover in the language or 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 rights to a person interested is in negation of fair and just procedure offending Article 14 of the Constitution.
This question was also considered by the Constitution Bench in U.P. Awas Ewam Vikas Parishad Vs. Cyan Devi (AIR 1995 SC 724) in which
it has been hold that ""the Act confers on a local authority for whom land is being acquired a right to appear in the acquisition proceedings before
the Collector and the reference court and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. Further, it was held that
the right to appear and adduce evidence carries with it the right to be given adequate notice by the Collector as well as the reference court before
whom acquisition proceedings are pending."" This right has been denied to the appellant because notice to the Collector is not notice to the
appellant. The Collector in fact is an agent of the Government. His designation as ""Collector, Land Acquisition, DulHasti"" only indicates that he is
Collector for acquisition of Sand for DulHasti Project. He is neither the agent nor an employee of the Project. He is a party only because as
Collector he adjudicates the rights of the interested parties and determines compensation. Unless he is impleaded the reference court will not be in
a position to summon the record of the acquisition proceedings. But he is not a substitute for the indenting department and notice to him is not and
cannot be held to be notice to the indenting department.
The learned Addl. District Judge rejected the application for impleadment as well as setting aside the exparte award on the ground that the
appellants had notice of the proceedings. However, unless the appellants were impleaded as party, the question of notice would not arise.
Assuming that the appellants had notice of the, though it is not so. the award would still be challenged within 30 days from the date of
knowledge of the award like any other exparte decree of the civil court. But the finding of the court is limited to the fact that the appellants had
notice of the proceedings and not that they had notice of the award also. If that be so as it really is. the application ought to have been allowed.
The specific case pleaded is that the appellants came to know about the award only on 16051995 and filed the application on 02061995 a fact
not controverted. Since the application was filed within 30 days from the date of knowledge of the award it is within time under Article 164 of the
Limitation Act. Moreover notice of proceedings is not notice of the decree and the award under section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act being a
decree within the meaning of Civil Procedure 2 Cl (2) and CI (9) of the Code of Civil Procedure Article 164 of the Limitation Act is applicable.
Another aspect of the case is that the Collector has not named the appellants as interested party in the reference. The question is what its effect
on the proceedings. This question has been answered by this court in case General Manager, Salal Hydro Electric Project Vs. Collector, Reasi
and others (1995 JKLR 287) holding:
The position of Collector while acquiring land for a third party is only that of a bridge between the owner and the party for whom (Sic) land to be
acquired. Collector as such, has no direct interest in the matter. While the owner is interested to get the reasonable and fair compensation for his
land, the party for whose benefit land is acquired interested that no exorbitant price is extracted from him. Section 19 (b) of the Act makes it
incumbent on the Collector to communicate to the court that names of the persons who he has reason to believe, that they are interested in such
land.
As normal corollary to section 19 (b) the court in terms of section 20 (a) is bound to issue notice to such interested persons. In this case the
Collector did not name appellant as an interested persons in terms of section 19 (b) and consequently, no notice was issued to him by the court in
accordance with section 20 (b). As whole of the compensation amount is to be paid by the appellant, therefore, he has a right to show what
according to him will be just compensation.
Keeping in view the above judgment of the Supreme Court and the provisions constituted in section 18, 19 & 20 of the Act, I am of the opinion
that in these proceedings the appellant is not only interested party but in fact a necessary party.
Admittedly, appellants have not been named by the Collector in the reference, so the reference court erred in holding that the appellants had
sufficient notice when admittedly they were neither impleaded nor put on notice about the reference. To hold that since Collector had notice,
therefore, the indenting department is deemed to have notice would tantamount to hold that Collector and the indenting department are not
separate from one another which is antagonistic to the settled legal position that Collector is a statutory authority under the Land Acquisition Act
and acts independently. He owes his position to the Act and not to any party. So notice to him in no case can be notice to any interested party.
So the appellants being interested party had a right to be implsaded. Since the Collector did not name them in the reference as interested party
and the reference court failed to issue them notice, they cannot be deemed to have notice of the proceedings or the award. As the application for
setting aside the award has been made within 30 days from its knowledge, it is within time.
In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the order impugned set aside. Consequently, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the
Code of Civil Procedure filed by the appellant on 02061995 is allowed and the exparte decree passed by the Addl. District Judge, Kishtwar is
also set aside. The reference shall be reheard by the reference court after impleading the appellants and giving them opportunity to file objections,
whereafter the parties will be at liberty to produce such evidence as they may deem proper. Parties to appear before the reference court on
28061999.