The Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs State of Kerala and Others

M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.—Common questions arise in the above Original Petitions. At the instance of the Petitioner properties belonging to the Respondents were acquired. Enhancement of compensation was granted to the claimants (Respondents) by the Court. Contention of the Petitioner is that the properties were acquired at its instance, that the burden of payment of the enhanced compensation awarded by the Sub Court wholly rests upon it and that as a person interested it ought to have been given notice to appear before the Court and as that was not done the judgments and decrees of the Sub Judge cannot be sustained.

Contention of the Respondents is that the writ petitions are not maintainable as the only course open to the Petitioner is to have filed appeals against the judgments and decrees of the Sub Court before this Court as provided u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereafter referred to as ''the Act''). According to them, Petitioner is not an interested party in the land acquisition reference before the Court. Alternatively it is contended that even if the Petitioner is an interested party appeals against the judgments and decrees of the Sub Court as provided u/s 54 of the Act is the only remedy available to it.

The question that arises for consideration is whether the Petitioner, assuming that it is an interested party, can challenge the judgment of the Sub Court by filing writ petition without having recourse to the remedy by way of appeal as provided under the Act. Section 50(1) postulates that whenever any land is acquired at the instance of any local authority or company the charges incurred for the same shall be defrayed by the local authority or company. Section 50(2) provides that in any proceedings held before a Collector 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. Petitioner has thus ample opportunity to see that only reasonable compensation is granted by the Collector or the Court. Petitioner can very well adduce necessary evidence to see that inflated compensation is not granted. Though proviso to Sub-section (2) makes it clear that the local authority or company cannot demand a reference u/s 18, they can as of right take part in the proceedings before the Collector or Court to see that only reasonable compensation is paid. Section 50(2) adequately safeguards the interests of the Petitioner. Statutory recognition of Petitioner''s right to adduce evidence with regard to the determination of compensation can be discerned from Section 50(2). Absolutely there was no obstacle for the Petitioner to have availed of that right to vindicate its stand that the Respondents are not entitled to any enhanced compensation.

That was not availed.

As the Petitioner could have adduced evidence in the proceedings before the Sub Court for determining the amount of compensation, it alone can be blamed for the lapse. Section 53 provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under the Act, As Section 54 provides for appeals and as Petitioner could have filed appeals with the leave of the Court, the writ petitions to quash the judgments and decrees, of the Sub Court cannot be entertained. As efficacious alternative remedy is available to the Petitioner, the writ petitions are not maintainable.

Even if the contention of the Petitioner that no notice was issued to it by the Court is accepted, it would not in any manner advance its case in the proceedings before this Court as the alternative effective remedy is not availed. In Victoria Xavier v. G.C.D.A. 1992 (1) KLT 613 a Division Bench of this Court held that a beneficiary who chooses to exercise the power u/s 50(2) is entitled to be impleaded as an intervenor in the proceedings u/s 18 and that he is entitled to take all legal steps which any other full-fledged party is entitled to take, like submission of pleadings, adducing evidence, right of cross-examination and serving of interrogatories, etc., Petitioner could have intervened in the proceedings before the Sub Court and adduced evidence in support of its contentions against any enhancement of compensation. As the Petitioner could have taken legal steps like any other full-fledged party to the proceedings and if aggrieved, it could have taken up the matter in appeal, the failure to do so is its own making and it cannot have recourse to proceedings under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

In the result, the Original Petitions are dismissed.