COURT FEES EXEMP‘IED BY NOTIFICATION No. sgewD-asZO/XXI- alga/05 Ian OFTHE As SPECIFIED COURT FEES IN SCHEDuLE ACI 187a. iimmn I” "r a emu H M IN THE, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR‘ CHHATTISGARH ‘ \ FIRST APPEAIS _ M)No. 43" ‘ £2007 JpyuI— I p E APPELLANT : State of Chhattisgarh PLAINTIFF Through: The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Bridge Construction Division, Raipur, Chhattisgarh VERsus NON-APPELLANT: 1. M/s. Raipur Metal Products DEFENDANT (L, Raipur Private (CG) Limited,_Sadar I Bazar, Through: Its Director, Shri Lalit Kumar Chopda, S/o. Manohar Chand Chopda, R/o. Sadar Bazar, Raipur, Tahsii and ‘ District Raipur, Chhattisgarh The Collector, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)*/ Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur, Chhattisgarh \ FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT ,g A _, A t HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon’ble Shri Justice l.M.‘Quddusi and. Hon’ble Shri Justice Pras‘hant Kumar Mishra First Appeal (M.) No.76 of 2007 Shri Vinay Harlt Deputy Advocate General for the State/appellant Shri Sourabh Sharma counsel for respondent No 1 First Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act ORAL JUDGMENT (Delivered on 10m January, 201 1) Per I.M. Qudclusi, J.: Heard. 2. The instant appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (henceforth ‘the Act’) has been preferred by the State of Chhattisgarh to call in question the order passed by the 9th Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur on 25-6-2007 in Civil Miscellaneous Case No.14/2005 dismissing the reference application preferred by the State/appellant under Section 18 of the Act. 3. Facts of the case, in short, are that land belonging to respondent No.1 was acquired in Land Acquisition Case No.06/A- 82/Year 2002-2003,'Village Khamtarai, Tahsil and District Raipur and the award under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 26—7— 2004/27-8—2004. The acquisition was made for construction of a; Appellant State of Chhattisgarh‘ versus Respondents M/s Raipur Metal Products Private Limited and others Present ===} \M railway over-bridge on Raipur—Bilaspur Road at Village Khamtarai. The Iand acquisition officer passed an award in favour of respondent No.1 for Rs.27,36,873/—. After deducting the amount already deposited by the State, respondent No.1 was found to be entitied to balance amount of Rs.23,43,424/-. 2 i 4. The District Court framed 4 issues for determination and while answering issue No.3 it has found that though the State of Chhattisgarh is a “person interested” and can prefer a reference application under Section 18 of the Act yet the application having been preferred by a person who was not authorized in writing and no letter of authorization having preferred, the reference is not maintainable. 5. Shri ‘Sourabh Sharma, learned c0unsel appearing for respondent No.1 has raised a preliminary objection that the State of Chhattisgarh is not a “person interested” and, therefore, the reference application itself was not maintainable. 6. Shri Vinay Harit, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/appellant has strongly resisted the argument and has submitted that the reference application was maintainable in law and the learned District Court should have allowed the application. u; ,A,, 7. Before proceeding .to consider the merits of the matter, this Court wo’uld first take-up the issue regarding maintainability of the reference application on behalf of the State/appellant. The expression “person interested” has been defined under Section 3(b) of the Act. The said definition is inclusive definition although not an V 3 exhaustive one. Primarily it includes “all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land." 8. While considering the meaning and sweep of the words “person interested” for the purpose of Section 18 of the Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. S.U.T.N.l. Sangam and others, AIR' 2010 SC 112 has held in paragraphs 55, 57 and 59 thus: “55. The expression “person interested" for the purpose of Section 18 of the Act may be given a restricted meaning. A State is not a person interested. A company or a local authority for whose benefit the lands are acquired, having regard to the provisions of sub—section (2) of Section 5O of the Act, is not entitled to file any application for reference. 57. The Association, therefore, could file a writ application representing its members but, stricto sensu, it could not have tiled any application for reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act. For the purpose of making such an application, indisputably, the period of limitation provided for therein must be resorted to. However, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a statute of limitation should receive strict construction. 59. in a land acquisition matter, the question of a body of the persons being represented by Association does not arise. The statute provides for filing of claim applications as also filing of objections by the land holders and not by and/or on behalf of the Association and that too an independent body corporate.” . nhfm “5o 9. On an earlier occasion, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharda’ Devi vs. State of Bihar and another, (2003) 3 SCC 128, after relying on Coilector of Bombay vs. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri and others, AIR 1955 SC 298 and Dr. G.H.Grant vs. The State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 237 has held that Government is not a person interested within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act. 10. In view ofthe Iaw laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as discussed above and relying on the said judgments, this Court is of the considered view that the reference application under Section 18 of the Act preferred by the State/appellant was not maintainable. Though the District Court has dismissed the application on merits after recording a finding that the reference application was maintainable yet in view of the tlaw‘ laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court does not'find any substance in this appeal as the reference application was not maintainable. Consequently, the instant appeal is dismissed. Sdl— l.M.Quddusi l Judge Gopal a»?tf L i