- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
The Hindustan Sanita... v. The State Of Haryana...
Factual and Procedural Background
This order disposes of Civil Revisions Nos. 1250, 1251, 1253, 1255, 1256, 1258, 1259, 1261 and 1263 to 1265 of 1970. Some land in villages Parnala and Bahadurgarh, District Rohtak, was acquired for two companies: The Hindustan Sanitaryware and Industries Limited, Bahadurgarh, and The Hindustan National Glass Manufacturing Company Limited, Bahadurgarh. It is admitted that these two companies are to pay the compensation. The Collector made an award. The landowners applied under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for a reference to the learned District Judge for enhancement of compensation. The two companies applied before the learned Additional District Judge for permission to appear and adduce evidence to show that there should be no increase in compensation. The landowners contested that application on the ground that the companies had no locus standi. The learned Additional District Judge allowed the landowners' contention, and the two companies filed these revision petitions challenging that order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the two companies, who are to pay the compensation, have locus standi to be permitted to appear and adduce evidence in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to resist enhancement of compensation.
- Whether the learned Additional District Judge's order refusing the companies' application to appear and adduce evidence should be quashed (i.e., the correctness of that procedural ruling).
- Whether non-compliance with the provisions of Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act affects the validity of the acquisition in the present proceedings (this point was raised by respondents but noted to have been earlier decided by this Court).
Arguments of the Parties
Applicants / The Two Companies
- Sought permission to appear before the learned Additional District Judge and to adduce evidence to show that the Collector's award of compensation was adequate and should not be increased.
- Implicitly relied on the fact that they are the parties who will have to pay any enhanced compensation and so would be prejudiced by an increase.
Respondents / Landowners
- Contended that the two companies had no locus standi to move for permission to appear and adduce evidence; this contention prevailed before the learned Additional District Judge.
- Also submitted that the provisions of Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act had not been complied with in acquiring the land (i.e., challenging validity of acquisition on that ground).
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Jaishi Ram Goel v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 Punj 177 | Prior decision of this Court on issues relating to the acquisition and compliance with Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act. | The court noted that the question of compliance with Part VII had already been decided by this Court in that case and therefore did not re-open the issue in the present proceedings. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court observed that the companies are the parties that will be required to pay any compensation and thus would be prejudiced if the compensation were increased on reference under Section 18. On that basis the court found no reason to refuse them permission to lead evidence to show that the Collector's award was adequate.
The court noted that learned counsel for the respondents could not point to any principle of law or authority holding that persons who have to pay the compensation cannot be allowed to lead evidence to resist enhancement. The court further observed that Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act makes the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to proceedings before the Additional District Judge, and under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC the judge had ample power to implead the two companies as parties.
With respect to the respondents' submission about non-compliance with Part VII, the court stated that this question had already been decided by this Court in Jaishi Ram Goel v. State of Punjab (AIR 1962 Punj 177), and therefore it did not re-decide that issue.
Holding and Implications
Petitions accepted; impugned order quashed.
Direct effect: The court quashed the order of the learned Additional District Judge that had held the two companies lacked locus standi, thereby permitting the companies to be heard (including to lead evidence) and to be impleaded as parties in the reference under Section 18.
Costs: The court directed that the parties bear their own costs.
Broader implications: The opinion does not purport to establish a new, generalized precedent beyond the disposition of these petitions; it rests its decision on the companies' interest as parties who will have to pay any enhanced compensation and on the procedural provisions (Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act and Order 1, Rule 10 CPC).
1. This order will dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. 1250, 1251, 1253, 1255, 1256, 1258, 1259, 1261 and 1263 to 1265 of 1970.
2. The facts are not in dispute. Some land in villages Parnala and Bahadurgarh. District Rohtak, was admittedly acquired for two companies, namely, The Hindustan Sanitaryware and Industries Limited, Bahadurgarh, and The Hindustan National Glass Manufacturing Company Limited, Bahadurgarh. It is further admitted that the compensation amount has to be paid by these two companies. The Collector gave his award and against his decision the landowners made applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act that the case be referred to the learned District Judge for enhancement in the compensation.
3. The two companies made an application before the learned Additional District Judge that they be permitted to appear and adduce evidence and show that there should be no increase in the compensation which had been awarded by the Collector.
4. This application was contested by the various landowners on the ground that the two companies had no locus standi to move the same. Their contention prevailed with the learned Judge and against that order the two companies have filed these revision petitions.
5. From the facts stated above, it is apparent that the compensation amount has to be paid by the two companies. If the said amount is increased by the learned Additional District Judge on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, it would be the two companies, who would be prejudiced. I do not see any reason as to why under these circumstances they should not be permitted to lead evidence and say that the compensation amount awarded by the Collector was adequate and that there should not be any further increase in it as demanded, by the landowners. Learned counsel for the respondents could not point out on what principle of law the request of the two companies could be resisted. No authority even was cited by him that under similar circumstances any Court, had ever held that the persons, who had actually to pay the compensation could not be allowed to lead evidence and say that the compensation amount be not enhanced. It is noteworthy that by virtue of Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applied to all proceedings before the learned Additional District Judge and he had therefore, ample powers under Order 1. Rule 10 of the CPC, also to implead the said two companies as parties.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the provisions of Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act had not been complied with, while acquiring the land in this case. This circumstance might or might not have been relevant for the purpose of deciding as to whether the acquisition in the instant case was valid or not. But this question has already been decided by this Court in this very case and it is reported as Jaishi Ram Goel v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 Punj 177.
7. I would, therefore, accept these petitions and quash the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge.
8. In the circumstances of this case, however, I will leave the parties to bear their own costs.
9. Petitions accepted.
Alert