Case: Godavari Marathwada Patbandhare Vikas Mahamandal &amp; Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra &amp; Others

public purpose, namely, Kadva Project, and in continuation of the same public purpose, a Corporation was established by the State being Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation by a legislative Act issued by the competent Legislature. Merely because this Corporation was established in the year 1998 and the Award of the Joint District Judge was passed on 7th April 1995 per se cannot be a ground for rejecting the claim of the Corporation of being heard before the SLAO in proceedings under Section 28A or in the Appeals, if preferred against the judgment of the Reference Court. 13. While considering the case for enhancement of compensation under Section 28A of the Act, the SLAO is expected to appreciate the evidence and has to examine whether the lands of the Claimants before him are entitled to similar or identical compensation as awarded to the owners of the land by the Reference Court or any other Court of competent jurisdiction. The Scheme of Section 28A is that the Collector on receipt of an application under sub-section (1) would conduct an enquiry after giving notice to the interested persons and giving them reasonable opportunity of being heard, would make the Award. Proceedings Section 28A are for re-determination of compensation by the SLAO himself. 14. It will be useful to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Rasak and others vs. Kerala Water Authority and others, (2002) 3 SCC 228 , where the land initially had been acquired for the benefit of Public Health Engineering Department of the State Government of Kerala vide Notification dated 19th July 1981 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, but subsequently, the Kerala Water Authority, a statutory Corporation was established to achieve the said object and for the benefit of that Corporation the Award had been made. The Supreme Court in these circumstances held as under :- ..... For our purpose, it would suffice to note that in the opinion of the Constitution Bench [U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Gyan Devi, (1995) 2 SCC 326 ], the right conferred on the local authority under Section 50 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, in the light of the scheme of the Act, carried with it the right to be given adequate notice by the Collector as well as the reference court before whom acquisition proceedings are pending of the date on which the matter of determination of compensation will be taken up; the local authority is a proper party in the proceedings before the reference court and is entitled to be impleaded as a party in those proceedings wherein it can defend the determination of the amount of compensation by the Collector and oppose enhancement of the said amount and also adduce evidence in that regard; in the event of enhancement of amount of compensation by the reference court if the Government does not file any appeal, the local authority can file an appeal against the award in the High Court after obtaining leave of the Court. The Constitution Bench, however, added a rider to its judgment that the law laid down by it would not have the effect of reopening the matters which stand finally concluded. 15. The learned Single Judge appears to have proceeded on the basis that pronouncement of an Award dated 7th April 1995 has to be an end to the proceedings. Firstly, it is not clear from the record whether Appeals against the order and judgment dated 7th April 1995 has been preferred by either parties to the proceedings or not. In any case, the proceedings under Section 28A of the Act are proceedings for re-determination of compensation. Once the Collector makes an Award under Section 28A of the Act, accepting, rejecting or partially accepting the claim of the Claimants, the recourse open to the Claimants again would be by filing application under Section 28A(3) of the Act, which would be governed by Sections 18 to 28 of the Act. In other words, the entire process that will have to be followed after the passing of the Award under Section 28A of the Act will be identical in fact and in law to the remedies available to the Claimants against an original Award made under Section 11 of the Act by the Collector. 16. This can also be examined from another point of view. Under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, a party is entitled to assign its rights in a legal proceedings to a third party during pendency of the original proceedings or even after passing of a decree in appellate proceedings. Of course, this has to be done with the leave of the Court. Once the leave of the Court is granted, the proceedings can be continued by an assignee. The stage of the proceedings is irrelevant in so far as other requirements of these provisions are satisfied and the leave of the Court is obtained. The Corporation has come into existence by virtue of legislative Act and not a contractual act. The Corporation would be entitled to be impleaded into the proceedings from the date of its existence and would be entitled to participate in the proceedings which are instituted thereafter or at the stage where they are pending. In the present case, the Petitions under Section 28A of the Act have been filed in the year 1995 while the Corporation came into existence on 1st October 1998 while the Award has been made before the Collector subsequent to its coming into existence i.e. on 20th September 2003. Thus, we are unable to accept the contention of the Respondents that the Corporation is neither a necessary nor a proper party and cannot participate in the proceedings merely because it came into existence subsequently. As it has taken over all the rights and liabilities of the erstwhile Department and it would be the exclusive responsibility of the Corporation to pay enhanced compensation, it has every right to participate in the proceeding.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]6. As is evident from the above recorded findings, it is clear that the genesis of the impugned order is that as the Corporation came into existence subsequent to the passing of the Judgment dated 7th April 1995, it has no locus standi or right to be heard by the SLAO before whom the Petitions were filed under Section 28A of the Act. The original Award was made by the SLAO on 30th November 1987 awarding compensation of Rs.6,500per hectare for acquisition of the lands of the Claimants depending upon the nature and potential of the land. As already referred, this compensation was enhanced by the Reference Court by its judgment dated 7th April 1995 to Rs.24,000per hectare. The present Respondent No.2 (Claimants in all these 18 Writ Petitions) filed their Petitions under Section 28A of the Act between the period 7th August 1995 to 21st September 1995 i.e. after the pronouncement of the Award by the Joint District Judge, Nashik. The SLAO granted relief to the Claimants – land owners and awarded the compensation payable at the rate of Rs.24,000per hectare depending upon the nature and potential of the land. The learned Single Judge has not touched the merits of the case but has only proceeded on the basis that the Corporation was neither a necessary nor a proper party for the reason that they came into existence subsequent to the order passed by the Joint District Judge, Nashik i.e. 7th April 199511. From the above settled principle of law, it is clear that the Corporation or a Company for whose benefit and public purpose the land is acquired by the State would be a proper party entitled to participate in the proceedings at all relevant stages. Determination of compensation is not only confined to the proceedings before the Collector and the Reference Court, but it extends to proceedings before the Appellate Court or any other forum in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act provided the issue relates to determination and/or enhancement of compensation. Section 3(b) of the Act explains and defines the word person interested. The said expression is stated to be inclusive of all the persons claiming an interest and compensation to be made on account of acquisition of land under this Act and the person shall be deemed to be interested in the land if he is interested even in an easement affecting the land. Section 9 of the Act also refers shall require all persons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent before the Collector. Section 11 also refers to this expression. In some what distinction to the expression used earlier, Section 18 refers to any person interested thus indicating the wide and liberal meaning that this expression is intended to be given by the Legislature in different provisions of the Land Acquisition ActIn the present case, right from the beginning the land has been acquired for a public purpose, namely, Kadva Project, and in continuation of the same public purpose, a Corporation was established by the State being Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation by a legislative Act issued by the competent Legislature. Merely because this Corporation was established in the year 1998 and the Award of the Joint District Judge was passed on 7th April 1995 per se cannot be a ground for rejecting the claim of the Corporation of being heard before the SLAO in proceedings under Section 28A or in the Appeals, if preferred against the judgment of the Reference Court15. The learned Single Judge appears to have proceeded on the basis that pronouncement of an Award dated 7th April 1995 has to be an end to the proceedings. Firstly, it is not clear from the record whether Appeals against the order and judgment dated 7th April 1995 has been preferred by either parties to the proceedings or not. In any case, the proceedings under Section 28A of the Act are proceedings forn of compensation. Once the Collector makes an Award under Section 28A of the Act, accepting, rejecting or partially accepting the claim of the Claimants, the recourse open to the Claimants again would be by filing application under Section 28A(3) of the Act, which would be governed by Sections 18 to 28 of the Act. In other words, the entire process that will have to be followed after the passing of the Award under Section 28A of the Act will be identical in fact and in law to the remedies available to the Claimants against an original Award made under Section 11 of the Act by the CollectorIn the present case, the Petitions under Section 28A of the Act have been filed in the year 1995 while the Corporation came into existence on 1st October 1998 while the Award has been made before the Collector subsequent to its coming into existence i.e. on 20th September 2003. Thus, we are unable to accept the contention of the Respondents that the Corporation is neither a necessary nor a proper party and cannot participate in the proceedings merely because it came into existence subsequently. As it has taken over all the rights and liabilities of the erstwhile Department and it would be the exclusive responsibility of the Corporation to pay enhanced compensation, it has every right to participate in the proceeding.