Regional Medical Research Centre, Tribals v. Gokaran And Others

Order

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions Nos. 11137-38 of 2001 are filed against the order of 5-3-2001 and the other two appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions Nos. 1697 and 1699 of 2002 are against the order dated 1-12-1998.

4. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:

There were land acquisition proceedings in which an award came to be passed. After the award was passed some of the owners filed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court disposed of those references by maintaining the award. The landowners filed appeals before the High Court. The High Court by its judgment dated 1-12-1998 has enhanced the compensation.

5. The appellants, being the body on whose behalf the land was acquired, applied that the order be set aside as they were not impleaded and no notice was issued to them. By order dated 5-3-2001, the High Court has dismissed this application on the ground that the appellants did not come forward to show any interest in the land acquisition proceedings. It is held that the appellants have not shown in what way the judgment dated 1-12-1998 was illegal. It has been held that the appellants should have preferred an application and sought hearing. It has been held that as they were aware of the proceedings, they could not be allowed to reopen the proceedings.

6. In our view the order of the High Court is contrary to the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (1995) 2 SCC 326. It has been held by the majority that the local authority or the company has a right to participate in the proceedings for determination of the compensation. It is held that they must be allowed to appear and adduce evidence not only before the Collector but also before the Reference Court. It is held that the Court was obliged to give notice of the date of taking up the matter regarding determination of compensation. It has been held that even though they are not a necessary party, they are a proper party who must be impleaded in the proceedings before the Reference Court.

7. Subsequently, this Court has in the case of Abdul Rasak v. Kerala Water Authority (2002) 3 SCC 228 followed the abovementioned judgment of this Court and has given certain directions which in our view should be repeated in these cases also.

8. It is submitted that the appellants had not pointed out in their application that they had a right under Section 50 to appear in the proceedings. In our view the right does not arise from the fact that a party has or has not mentioned a particular section in the application. If under the law, they have a right, then irrespective of the fact that a particular section is not mentioned, that right does not get defeated. In their application they have mentioned that they are the body on whose behalf the land was acquired. This is an admitted position. Once they are the body on whose behalf the land was acquired, as laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court, it was absolutely necessary that they be impleaded and notice be issued to them. This has admittedly not been done.

9. It is next submitted that right to be impleaded and to be given a notice is only to a local authority or a company. It is submitted that the appellants have not pointed that they are a local authority or a company. In our view, this merely needs to be stated to be rejected. The appellants are the statutory body on whose behalf the land has been acquired. The definitions of “local authority” and “company” in the Land Acquisition Act are inclusive definitions. They include all bodies on whose behalf land is acquired.

10. In this view, the order of the High Court dated 5-3-2001 not allowing the application, cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.

11. As the appellants have to be given an opportunity of leading evidence, this can only be done before the Reference Court. Therefore, the order of the High Court and the order of the Reference Court are set aside. The matter is sent back to the Reference Court with the following directions:

(a) The appellants shall be deemed to have been brought on record in the reference cases. The cause-title of the cases shall be amended accordingly. The appellants to file their written statements to the claim petition within a period of four weeks from the date they are made parties.

(b) The cases being old, the Reference Court will dispose of the reference case, as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, within a period of six months from today.

(c) The statements of the witnesses already recorded and documents already filed will remain as evidence before the Reference Court. Unless the claimants so desire, no further evidence will be recorded on behalf of the claimants. It is, however, clarified that if the claimants want to lead further evidence they must be permitted to do so.

(d) The appellants shall be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses already examined. But if any witness is not available and cannot be got produced before the Reference Court, then the evidence of that witness and his statement shall not be excluded from consideration.

(e) The claimants would be at liberty to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary. All the parties will be entitled to cross-examine their witnesses.

12. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

13. It is clarified that the amount awarded as per the award of the Collector must be paid over to the claimants, if not already paid. The amount, which has been deposited, pursuant to this Court's order, will remain deposited and invested, pending disposal of the reference case.