http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE SPECIAL TEHSILDAR (ZA) AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/11/1995

BENCH: KIRPAL B.N. (J) BENCH: KIRPAL B.N. (J) AHMADI A.M. (CJ) SINGH N.P. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  853            1996 SCC  (2) 332  1995 SCALE  (6)606

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T KIRPAL, J      Leave granted.      The short facts leading to these appeals are as under:      For the  Rocket Launching  Station located  at Sri Hari Kota of  Indian Space  Research Organisation,  Department of Space, Government of India, an area of about 37,792 acres of land was  acquired sometimes  in 1970s.  Consequent  to  the expansion of  space programmes  certain additional  lands at the southern  tip of  Sri Harikota  Islands in the Marimanal village in Pooneri Taluka Chengai Anna District, Tamil Nadu, were acquired.  The extent of these lands, with which we are concerned, was about 5394 acrea.      For the  purpose of  acquiring the aforesaid lands, the Department of  Space, Government  of  India  approached  the State  of   Tamil  Nadu.  This  was  done  pursuant  to  the Notification  No.4(1)/65  dated  23.4.1966  which  had  been issued under  Article 258(1)  of the  Constitution of  India whereby President  of India  had entrusted to the Government of Tamil  Nadu, with  their consent,  the functions  of  the Central Government  under the  Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in relation to  acquisition of  lands for  the purpose  of  the Union in  the said  State. Accordingly,  Notification  under Section 4  of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’) was issued by the Governor of Tamil Nadu on 3.11.1982.      Pursuant to  the issuance of the aforesaid Notification under Section  4 of  the Act, further proceedings were taken and the  Land Acquisition  Officers awarded Rs.10 per ’cent’ of land  as compensation  apart from  the  compensation  for standing trees,  crops etc. Dissatisfied with the award, the land owners  filed  application  requiring  Reference  under Section 18 of the Act. The said References were heard by the Subordinate  Court   at  Tiruvllur   and   the   amount   of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

compensation was  substantially increased and it ranged from Rs.100/- to Rs.180/- per ‘cent’ of land.      Against the aforesaid judgment of the Subordinate Court dated 31.1.1986,  enhancing the  compensation,  the  Special Tehsildar filed  appeals in  the High  Court of  Madras. The High Court  by an interim order directed the entire enhanced award amounts  to be  deposited in the court within 12 weeks and if the amount was not to be deposited, then the stay was to be automatically vacated.      Inasmuch as  the lands  were acquired  by the  Union of India and the compensation to be paid was to be borne by the Department of Space, the State Revenue Authorities urged the Space  Department   to  deposit  the  enhanced  compensation amounts in  the Court.  Thereupon the  Department  of  Space filed Writ Petition Nos.1824-34/88, 2347-2359/88 in the High Court of  Madras  praying  that  the  Department  should  be impleaded as a party in the aforesaid appeals which had been filed by  the Land Revenue Authorities and there should be a stay with  regard to  the direction  which had  been  issued requiring the  deposit of  the enhanced  amount. These  writ petitions were  admitted  and  interim  orders  were  passed staying the  operation of  the  awards/decrees  of  enhanced compensation which had been passed.      The aforesaid  writ petitions,  along with  a number of similar  petitions   filed  by   other  Central   Government Departments and  organisations were  heard by the High Court and the  impugned judgment  and order  dated 28.4.1989,  the High Court  held that  the Requisitioning Department in land acquisition cases  could not  be  considered  an  interested party in  the cases  and, therefore, should not be impleaded as a  party. Challenging the aforesaid decision, it has been contended on  behalf of  the appellants  that in view of the decision of  the Constitution  Bench in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs.  Gyan Devi  (dead) by LRs and Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 326, the  appellants should  have been  impleaded as a party because the  acquisition proceedings  had taken place at the expense and  for the  benefit of the appellants. It was also submitted by  the learned counsel for the appellants that in Union of  India Vs.  Sher Singh  (1993) 1  SCC 608, land had been acquired  for the  purpose of  Union of India which had moved an  application before  the Reference  Court for being impleaded in  the array  of respondents. On this application being rejected  by the  Reference Court, an appeal was filed and this Court, while reversing the order of the High Court, allowed the application of the Union of India for impalement and held  that it was entitled to file an appeal in the High Court against  the judgment  of the  Reference  Court.  Shri Altaf  Ahmad   the  learned   Additional  Solicitor  General contended that the said decision has been referred to in the majority judgment  in U.P.  Awas Evam  Vikas Parishad’s case (supra) and  has not been dissented from and, therefore, the High Court ought to have directed that the appellants should be impleaded as a party.      On behalf  of the  respondents, it  has been  contended that the  decision in  U.P. Awas  Evam Vikas Parishad’s case (supra) has  no application in the present case because U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad was treated as a local authority by virtue of  Section 3(i)  as  introduced  by  U.P.  Act  and, therefore, Section  50(2) of  the Act conferred on the local authority, for whom the land is acquired, right to appear in the acquisition  proceedings before  the Collector  and  the reference Court  and adduce  evidence  for  the  purpose  of determining the  amount of  compensation. It  was  contended that in  the present  case,  the  appellants  could  not  be regarded as a local authority under Section 50 and it had no

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

right to  be impleaded  as a party. The second submission of the learned  counsel for  the respondents was that according to Section  3(ee) of  the Act,  the expression  ‘appropriate Government’ in  relation to  acquisition  of  land  for  the purposes of  Union is  the Central  Government. By virtue of the aforesaid  Notification  dated  23.4.1966  issued  under Article 258(1)  of the  Constitution of India, the President had delegated  the power of acquisition of land to the State of Tamil  Nadu. Therefore,  it was  contended that  when the State of  Tamil Nadu  initiated the acquisition proceedings, they were done by the Delegate of the Central Government and once the  power had been delegated, the appellants could not claim a right to be impleaded as a party.      In our  opinion, it  is not  necessary to decide any of the aforesaid  issues on  merits because  the writ petitions which were  filed by  the appellants  before the High Court, were completely mis-conceived.      It is  an admitted  case that  the appeals  are pending against  the  order  passed  by  the  Subordinate  Court  on reference having  been made under Section 18 of the Act. The appellants wanted  to be  impleaded as  a party  in the said appeals. The  proper and  the only  course which should have been adopted  was to have applied to the Appellant Court for being impleaded  as a  party. Instead  of doing  this,  writ petitions for  writs of  certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of  India were  filed. Presumably, it must have been  contended   that  the   appellants  should  have  been impleaded as  respondents as  they were  interested  parties because the acquisition was being effected at their expenses and for  their benefits. Further, no effective relief could, possibly, have  been sought  by the  appellants against  the respondents. What  was, in  fact, desired  by the appellants was an order of the Court for being impleaded in the appeals which were  pending before  the High  Court. The  collateral proceedings under  Article 226  of the Constitution of India could not  have been instituted and as already observed, the only remedy  which was  available to  the appellants  was to apply, in the pending appeals, to be impleaded as a party by moving an  appropriate interim  application. The  High Court unnecessarily entertained writ petitions and gave a detailed judgment on  the question  which,  in  fact,  it  could  not consider when  dealing with  a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution  of India.  This question  should have been considered only  if the  proper application was filed in the pending appeals  for being impleaded as a party. We may here observe that while dealing with merits of the case, the High Court did not have the benefit of the judgment of this Court in U.P.  Awas Evam  Vikas Parishad’s  case (supra)  and  the other judgments referred to therein.      For  the  reason  that  the  writ  petition  for  being impleaded as  a party  in Regular  First Appeals, which were pending, was  not a  proper remedy,  the said writ petitions filed by  the appellants          have to be dismissed. Such dismissal will  not be  regarded as  affecting the rights of the appellants  in applying  to the  High  Court  by  moving proper  applications   in  the  pending  appeals  for  being impleaded  as   a  party.  Such  applications  may,  if  the appellants desire,  be filed  within two months and in case, the same  are filed, they will be considered and disposed of by the  High Court  in accordance  with law, keeping in view the law  laid down  by this  Court in  U.P. Awas  Evam Vikas Parishad’s case  (supra) and  the other  decisions which had been relied upon therein.      The appeals  are disposed  of in  the aforesaid  terms. There will be no order as to costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

    Application for substitution is also allowed.