The Union of India (UOI) vs Kuppayammal and Another

Pratap Singh, J.—These revision petitions are directed against the orders made in REA. Nos. 255/91,2527 91 and 558/91 in R.E.P. Nos. 127/87 in L.AO.P. No. 9 of 1986, R.E.P. 165/87 in L.A.O.P. No. 10 of 1986 and R.E.P. 17/91 in L.A.O.P. No. 3 of 1987 respectively on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem, in which the learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the petitions filed by the revision petitions to implead it as a party in the execution proceedings.

Short facts are:

On reference u/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act awards were passed in L.A.O.Ps. 9. and 10 of 1986 on 23.1.1987 and in L.A.O.P. No. 3 of 1987 on 9.7.1987. The claimants filed execution petitions to realise amounts awarded in those L.A.O.Ps. At that time, the revision petitioner herein had filed the aforesaid R.E.A. Nos. 255,252 and 558 of 1991 to implead it as a party. That was objected to by the respondents. After hearing the parties, the learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed those petitions. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner in the court below has come forward with these three civil revision petitions.

Mr. S. Ramasubramaniam, the learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, would submit that the court below has dismissed the claim made by the petitioner on two grounds viz.,

(i) Delay

(ii) Res judicata

and both these grounds cannot be sustained. He would further submit that the delay cannot be a ground for rejection of the claim and the ground of res judicata taken by the lower court is erroneous inasmuch as claim now made is due to change of law viz.; amendment of Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act by virtue of the amendment made in it which came into force on 5.5.1990, Per contra, Mr. M.S. Umapathy, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, would submit that the awards were passed in 1987 and now to realise the amounts given in the awards, execution petitions were laid and at this stage the revision petitioners cannot invoke Section 20(d) of the Land Acquisition Act (which I shall hereafter refer to as ''the Act'') inasmuch as that section would come into play prior to the determination of the enhanced compensation by the court. He would add that the scheme of the Act, would fortify his point that Section 20 would come into play only prior to the fixation of the enhanced compensation by the court. The next submission made by him was that u/s 20(d) of the Act only in a case where the acquisition is not made for the Government the person or authority for whom it is made should be served with a notice and this is not a case where acquisition is not made by any person or authority other than the Government and on this count also this section will not be attracted. He lastly submitted that the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. is not applicable in the execution stage. Regarding these submissions put forth by Mr. Umapathy, Mr. S. Ramasubramaniam, the learned senior counsel, would submit that in the statement of objections and reasons given for the Tamil Nadu Amendment Bill, 1989 by virtue of which Section 20(d) has been added, it is stated that it was intended for application to pending proceedings and as such, execution proceeding is a pending proceeding and so the petitioner can seek impleadment even at this stage. With regard to the objection that the land was acquired only for the purpose of the Government and not for any other person, he would submit that first two paras of notification u/s 4, if read together, would make it explicit that it was not made for the purpose of Government but for steel plant township and ancillary industries and that the third para would indicate that it is not Salem Steel Project, Salem and that the petitioner herein, viz., Steel Authority of India Ltd., is the successor of Salem Steel Project, Salem. His further submission is that the petitioner claimed impleadment by virtue of Section 20(d) of the Act and so the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. is not applicable even assuming that it cannot be applied in the execution stage.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by rival counsels. I shall first advert to the grounds on which the court below had rejected the claim of the petitioner. The first ground of delay, cannot be sustained. I am clear that if a party has got a right to implead itself in a proceeding, that cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. The second ground viz., res judicata, because of the decisions of this Court dismissing the petitioner''s claim for impleadment in W.P. Nos. 6665 and 6397 of 1988, the simple answer would be that this petition is filed solely u/s 20(d) of the Land Acquisition Act and I am clear that when there is a change of law, decisions rendered prior to the change of law, cannot be pressed into service for putting forth a plea of res judicata. The aforesaid writ petitions were dismissed on 4.7.1989. This amendment by virtue of Section 20(d) came into the statute was given effect to from 5.5.1990. As such, the rulings rendered by this Court in W.P. Nos. 6663 and 6397 of 1988 cannot be construed as operating as res judicata against the petitioner.

I shall now advert to the submission made by Mr. Umapathy that the stage of impleadment had already gone. For appreciating this submission, Section 20 of the Act needs extraction. It reads as follows:

Service of notice: The court shall thereupon cause a notice, specifying the day on which the court will proceed to determine the objection, and directing their appearance before the court on that day, to be served on the following persons, namely:

(a) the applicant;

(b) all persons interested in the objection, except such (if any) of them as have consented without protest to receive payment of the compensation awarded;

(c) if the objection is in regard to the area of the land or to the amount of the compensation, the Collector, and

(d) if the acquisition is not made for the Government, the person or authority for whom it is made.

[emphasis supplied.]

To appreciate the submission made by Mr. Umapathy, Sections 18 and 19 of the Act also need reference. Sections 18,19 and 20 occur in Part III of the Act, which is under the heading "Reference to court and procedure thereon". Section 18 provides for ''reference to court: Section 19 provides for ''Collector''s statement to the court''. Thereafter, Section 20 comes in and provides for "service of notice" to the parties mentioned thereunder, specifying the day on which the court will proceed to determine the objection and directing their appearance before the court on that day. It clearly implies that the said notice was intended for hearing the Objection of the parties mentioned thereunder before fixing enhanced compensation. At that stage, notice was intended to the parties mentioned in Section 20 of the Act. That stage has passed and enquiry was held and enhanced compensation has been fixed. In view of the above, I find force in the submission made by Mr. Umapathy.

In this regard, Mr. S. Ramasubramanian, would submit that in the statement of objects and reasons, it is stated that this amendment is applicable to pending proceedings and so in an execution proceeding, the petitioner can claim impleadment. The relevant sentence in statement of objects and reasons, relied upon by Mr. Ramasubramaniam reads as follows:

It is also proposed to apply the above amendment to the proceedings pending before any court on the date of the commencement of the proposed amendment Act.

While considering this sentence in the statement of objects and reasons, the sentence prior thereto is also relevant and it reads as follows:

As a result, such person or, authority could not participate directly in the proceedings of the court and effectively assist the court in fixing the compensation reasonably. Hence, it is proposed to amend the said Section 20 so as to provide for the court to cause a notice to be served, on the person or authority also, for whom the land is acquired.

[Emphasis supplied.]

The above would clearly indicate that this amendment was made in Section 20 so as to enable that party also to help the Court in fixing the compensation reasonably. Taking that view of the matter, I am clear that the words occurring in the sentence relied upon by Mr. Ramasubramaniam, viz., "proceedings pending before any court" would only relate to proceedings pending for the fixation of the enhanced compensation and not thereafter. 7. I am fortified in coming to the above conclusion and construing to act in the above manner because of another reason also. For example, even in this case, the 4(1) notification was made as early as in 1964. The parties affected by the notification would be left in a nebulous stage right from that date. If by virtue of this amendment made in the Act in 1990, the entire thing is unsettled, that would lead definitely to injunction. In my opinion, that was why in the statement of objects and reasons given in the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, it has been so stated that this amendment was made so a? to enable that party for whom acquisition was made to take part and assist the Court in fixing the compensation reasonably. It cannot come at a later stage and putting forth contentions and unsettling the award. It is also worthwhile to note that this amendment was not given any retrospective effect. That is also a factor which impels me to come to a conclusion that this Section 20(d) is not applicable at a stage subsequent to fixing of enhanced compensation. 8. The next submission of Mr. Umapathy is that u/s 20(d), if the acquisition is not made for the Government, the person or authority for whom it is made can u/s 20(d) seek impleadment and in the instant case, acquisition was made for the Government and not for the petitioner. In 4(1) notification, in first para, last sentence, it is stated:

..to acquisition of lands for the purpose of the Union in this State.

In para 2, it is stated:

...for the establishment of a steel plant, township and ancillary industries...

In the third para, it is stated:

Under Section 3(c) of the same Act, the Governor of Madras appoints the Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition, Neyveli-Salem Steel Project, Salem, to perform the functions of a Collector u/s 5-A of the Act.

The petitioner herein is Steel Authority of India Ltd., Salem Steel Plant, Salem-13. In para 2 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner in R.E.A. 252/91 it is stated as follows:

Though the acquisition was made for the Central Government, the Central Government, had caused the acquisition to be made for the purposes of the Steel Authority of India Limited.

Taking the totality of the factors, I am inclined to accept the submission made by Mr. S. Ramasubramaniam that the acquisition was made only for the purpose of petitioner herein and as such he would come within the purview of Section 20(d) of the Act. In view of the above, I am unable to accept the submission made by Mr. Umapathy, who wants to disentitle the petitioner''s claim on this count also. But in view of my finding with regard to earlier submission that In execution stage, Section 20(d) cannot be pressed into service, neither u/s 20(d) of the Act, the petitioner can seek impleadment in this execution proceedings. So at this stage, the petitioner cannot implead itself as a party.

The next submission of Mr. Umapathy was that under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C., the petitioner cannot seek impleadment in an execution proceeding. I do not propose to go into that aspect of the case, inasmuch as in this case de hors provisions of Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. the petitioner is claiming impleadment as a patty u/s 20(d) of the Land Acquisition Act. That right is independent of the right provided under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. But yet in view of my view that Section 20(d) of the Act cannot help the petitioner to become a party in execution stage.

To sum up: a person or; authority cannot seek impleadment as a party by virtue of Section 20(d) of the Act in an execution proceeding. The said person or authority can seek impleadment only at a stage prior to fixation of enhanced compensation.

In view of the above, though not for the reasons given by the court below, for the reasons which I have given in these orders, I am clear that the petitioner cannot be impleaded as a party in the execution proceedings and hence all these three revision petitions shall stand dismissed. No costs.