Introduction:
The archaic Land Acquisition Act 1894 ("Land Acquisition Act") has been over a period of time interpreted and reimagined by way of various landmark judgements of the High Courts and the
Section 18 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act sets out the right of "any person interested" who has not accepted an award made by the Collector under the Act, and may require that the matter be referred to the appropriate Court (i.e., the reference court) for the determination as to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. The dichotomy between the existing framework of land acquisition laws vis-a-vis who may be construed as a party "interested" for the purpose of Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is the main topic for discussion of the present article.
Recently, the
Who is a "person interested"?:
The present article raises the question as to whether the allottee of the land acquired by the State Government is a "person interested" for the purpose of Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and consequently, whether such allottees are a proper party, in proceedings relating to the determination of enhanced compensation before a reference court initiated pursuant to Section 18 thereof.
As per Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, the expression "person interested" includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land. At the outset, it is pertinent to keep in mind that generally, the terms of allotment as are executed between the Government and the allottees of land, require the allottee to bear any enhanced compensation that may be awarded under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the party genuinely interested in opposing any request for compensation is naturally, the allottee.
Judicial Protagonism - Evolution of the term "Person Interested":
We have set out some arguments and examined some judicial pronouncements as a device to brainstorm and analyze the extant regime.
Much prior in time, the
This view of the
However, the decision in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra) does not appear to have been fully considered or discussed in view of specific distinguishing factors in Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (supra) as to how the obiter and ratio contained in
"62. ... none of the said judgments relied upon are applicable to the fact situation in the present case for the reason that those cases dealt with reference to the acquisition of land under the provisions of the LA Act, either in favour of the company or development authorities, whereas in the case on hand, the acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the KIAD Act for industrial development by KIADB."
In view of the above, even if it is assumed that an allottee of the land in question is not a "beneficiary" of the said allotted land, it is undisputed that it is bound to pay compensation (including enhanced compensation) under the agreement entered into between it and the relevant government body, and is, therefore, a "person interested", in view of the ratio provided in
Factually, both Sections 18 and 20 of the Land Acquisition Act fall under Part III thereof, which deals with "Reference to Court and Procedure thereon". Like in Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, Section 20 thereof also uses the phrase "persons interested" in the context that in case of the institution of proceedings under Section 18, the reference court shall direct appearance of all persons interested in the objection, except such (if any) of them as have consented without protest to receive payment of the compensation awarded, who must be heard before the reference court. Similarly, Section 29(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 ("KIAD Act") also provides for the service of notice to all persons "known or believed to be interested".
From a perusal of the analysis above, it appears that it cannot be said that the phrase "persons interested" can have different meanings in the two similarly placed statutes, given that they both fall under similar titles being- "Reference to Court and Procedure thereon". Accordingly, the interpretation accorded to the aforesaid title in
Further, Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act applies to the acquisition of land in favour of a company by the State Government by following the mandatory procedure contemplated under Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act falls in Chapter VII thereof under the heading "Miscellaneous" and the said provision is applicable to land acquisitions for companies, whether such acquisition is under Part VII. Accordingly, the allottee is also a "person interested" in terms of Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act which provides that if any land is acquired at the cost of any fund managed or controlled by a local authority or a company, the company concerned may appear before a collector or court to adduce evidence for determining the amount of compensation.
In the case of
However, it is pertinent to highlight that Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act requires the notification relating to the acquisition of land to specify the company for which the land is intended to be acquired for. The said provision is absent in various State enactments such as the KIAD Act. Therefore, there exists a possibility to argue that issuance of notice to an acquirer is not mandatory. In this context, the
Similarly, in Babu Barkya Thakur vs The State of Bombay & Others [AIR 1960 SC 1203], it was held that it is not absolutely necessary to the validity of the land acquisition proceedings that the statement "land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any other purpose or for the Company" should find a place in the notification actually issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The requirement of the law will be satisfied if, in substance, it can be found on investigation, an appropriate Government is satisfied as a result of such investigation that the land was intended for the purposes of the Company, which would amount to a public purpose.
Exploring the concept of natural justice: Is the allottee who is actually using the land in question, a "person interested"?:
At this juncture, it becomes germane to appreciate that most of all, for reasons of fairness, justice and equity, an allottee of the land in question cannot be made liable to bear the financial burden of the enhancement awarded, without being provided a fair chance at contesting/ proper contestation for bearing the burden of paying an enhancement award. The failure to implead the allottee of the land before a reference court evidently may entail unfair avoidance of opposition to the claim for enhancement and non-representation of the ultimate bearer of costs, which would singularly lead to injustice and compromise of commercial prudence.
Even otherwise, the
The aforementioned ratio laid by the
Our views:
In the above background, in view of the settled position of law, as upheld by the
The content of this document do not necessarily reflect the views/position of Khaitan & Co but remain solely those of the author(s). For any further queries or follow up please contact Khaitan & Co at legalalerts@khaitanco.com
Mr
One Indiabulls Centre
13th Floor, Tower 1
841 Senapati Bapat Marg
400 013
Tel: 226636 5000
Fax: 226636 5050
E-mail: bdo@khaitanco.com, Nilanjan.ghose@khaitanco.com
URL: www.khaitanco.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2022 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source