The recent court ruling delves into the interpretation of the Land Acquisition Act, focusing on critical aspects such as the definition of ‘person interested’. The legal analysis by the court sheds light on the intricacies of the Act, paving the way for a deeper understanding of its application in similar cases.
Facts
- Shrachi Burdwan Developers Private Limited is aggrieved by the High Court’s judgment quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 16.02.2017
- The High Court allowed the appeal of the original landowners and dismissed the Writ Petition No 9778(W) of 2012
- The case has been remanded back by the High Court to the learned Additional District Judge for fresh proceedings
- The High Court held that Shrachi Burdwan is a ‘person interested’ as per Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act
- The Reference Court enhanced the compensation which was later set aside by the High Court
- Hence, Shrachi Burdwan has filed Civil Appeal No.5856 of 2021
- Burdwan Development Authority requisitioned the land for setting up a Satellite Township for Burdwan Town at public expenses.
- Government issued 12 notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in April and May 2005.
- Landowners filed Civil Appeal Nos.5857-5880 of 2021 after the land was requisitioned.
- State of West Bengal took over possession of the lands from farmers on 26.02.2007 and handed it over to BDA, which further handed it over to Bengal Shrachi.
- References were made to the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act at the instance of the landowners.
- An unregistered Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) dated 08.03.2006 was executed between BDA and Bengal Shrachi for development of the acquired lands under a public-private partnership.
- Shrachi Burdwan applied to be impleaded in the execution petitions based on a judgment from a Writ Petition.
- The Reference Court dismissed the applications, leading to revision applications before the High Court.
- Land Acquisition Collector declared an award under Section 12(1) of the Act, which was paid by BDA.
- Paschim Bardhaman Krishi Kalyan Samity filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition, alleging it was not for public purpose and not at public expenses.
- BDA objected, stating that the entire cost of acquisition was borne by BDA itself and the lands were required for public purpose.
Also Read: Judicial Review of Delayed Writ Petition
Arguments
- Shri Shyam Divan, senior counsel for the appellant, argued that the appellant had the right to challenge the judgment and award of the Reference Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- The appellant claimed to be a person interested under Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act and sought to be heard in the execution petitions based on a previous judgment.
- Despite the awareness of a Division Bench decision, the High Court set aside the judgment and award of the Reference Court.
- Ms. Suri, senior counsel for the original landowners, vehemently opposed the High Court’s decision, citing various cases in support of their stance.
- The appellant was challenged on their claim of being a ‘person interested’ under the Act and their right to challenge the Reference Court’s award under Section 26.
- Shri Ranjit Kumar, representing BDA, supported the appellant’s arguments but acknowledged that BDA had pending appeals against the Reference Court’s judgment.
- The Division Bench of the High Court ultimately held that the writ petition challenging the Reference Court’s judgment was not maintainable, especially considering the pending appeals by BDA.
- Ms. Suri argued against the applicability of certain cited cases to the current scenario, emphasizing the appellant’s lack of standing as a person interested under the Act.
- The appellant’s justification for invoking Article 226 was based on not being heard before the compensation amount was enhanced by the Reference Court.
- The learned Single Judge’s decision to entertain the writ petition and set aside the Reference Court’s judgment was supported by the argument that the appellant was not heard before the enhancement of compensation.
- Shrachi Burdwan filed a writ petition challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court.
- The learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No 9778(W) of 2012 remanded the matter to the Reference Court for a fresh decision.
Also Read: Interpretation of Statutory Limitation under Section 263(2)
Analysis
- The High Court should not have entertained the writ petition challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court.
- The appellant’s locus to challenge the judgment and award enhancing compensation is disputed.
- The appellant was not a party to the Reference proceedings.
- The impugned judgment and order passed by the Single Judge is considered unsustainable.
- The High Court did not remand the Reference to the Reference Court, instead reserved liberty for landowners to make a fresh reference under Section 18 of the Act.
- The Division Bench’s order was binding on the Single Judge.
- The Single Judge’s decision to remand the matter to the Reference Court for fresh consideration was set aside by the Division Bench.
- It is disputed whether the appellant is a ‘person interested’ within the Land Acquisition Act.
- Initiating fresh proceedings under Section 18 would create various problems including limitation issues.
- The appellant’s prayer in the writ petition was restricted to only four respondents.
- Four appeals by the BDA challenging the Reference Court’s judgment and award are pending before the High Court.
- Appellant can pursue other remedies available to them, including filing an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act.
- Permission to file appeal under Section 54 subject to leave granted by the High Court.
- Appellant must prove they are a ‘person interested’ and have the locus to prefer an appeal under Section 54.
- Order reserving liberty for land losers to initiate a fresh process under Section 18 is contrary to the decision of the learned Single Judge.
- Learned Single Judge’s order remanding the matter for a fresh decision has been set aside by the Division Bench.
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Conviction Based on Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix
Decision
- Pending applications stand disposed of.
- Civil Appeal No 5856 of 2021 is dismissed with the option for landowners to challenge the locus of the appellant.
- No costs are awarded in this case.
- All questions are kept open for consideration by the High Court in future applications or appeals.
- The impugned judgment of the High Court is quashed and set aside, directing the Executing Court to proceed with the execution petitions.
Case Title: SHRACHI BURDWAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL (2021 INSC 620)
Case Number: C.A. No.-005856-005856 / 2021
