Case: City &amp; Industrial Development Corporation (Cidco) Vs. Percival Joseph Pareira &amp; Others

4. A few facts of the matter are as under:In the present proceeding, the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the acquired land was issued on 24th September, 1986. Thereafter, the declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 17th September, 1987. After the Award dated 18th September, 1989 was made, an Application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was filed by the Respondent no.1original claimant. In the said Reference, the AppellantCIDCO made an Application at Exhibit 38 on 7th April, 2004 contending that they are the beneficiaries of the acquisition and on the basis of agreement made by them with the Government of Maharashtra, compensation will be payable by the AppellantCIDCO. They relied on sub section 2 of section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the said Application, CIDCO contended that they were necessary party to the Land Acquisition Reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The said Application was rejected by the Reference Court by an order dated 27th October, 2004. This order has been allowed to attain finality. As a result, the issue could not have been raised by the State.5. However, on 7th April, 2008, the State of Maharashtra moved an Application Exhibit 113 contending that CIDCO being acquiring body was necessary party to the said Reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The State contended in the said Application that the subject matter of Reference is the land acquired by them and which has been transferred to the CIDCO and, therefore, they made prayer for impleading the CIDCO as second opponent in the said Reference. The same was opposed by the Respondent no.1original claimant on various grounds contending that CIDCO was not the acquiring body. They stated that acquisition was not done by the State at the instance of CIDCO. The State has made acquisition on its own and thereafter, decided to transfer the said land to CIDCO for development. The Reference Court by an order dated 29th September, 2008 allowed the Application below Exhibit 113 preferred by the State of Maharashtra and directed Respondent no.1original claimant to add CIDCO as opponent no.2 in Land Acquisition Reference no.620 of 2000.6. The order dated 29th September, 2008 was challenged by the Respondent no.1original claimant by preferring Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The said Writ Petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 7th November, 2009. Hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal.

Reasoning:
In the present case, admittedly, the State Government is bearing the entire expenses of acquisition of the land. CIDCO is getting only Rs.5,00,000/per year towards administrative expenses. Further, the AppellantCIDCO on its own pleaded before the Income Tax Appellate Authority that it was acting as an Agent of the State Government and nothing more. On accepting that contention, it has been held that CIDCO was not liable to pay income tax on the income derived from the development activities. Thus, it is not open to the Appellant to now contend to the contrary, or for that matter, approbate and reprobate. In any way, considering the provisions of Section 113of the Maharashtra Regional And Town Planning Act, 1966 it is not possible to hold that the AppellantCIDCO is the acquiring body. It is specifically stated in this section that such Company/Corporation or subsidiary company acts as an Agent of the State Government.18. It is to be noted that Government Resolution dated 12th February, 2008 does not support the case of CIDCO and in fact goes contrary to the CIDCOs case. The said Government Resolution makes it clear that payment to be made by CIDCO as compensation/enhancement of compensation will be on account of Government. Thus, the payment so made by CIDCO will be in the capacity of agent of the State Government. This position is consistent with the provisions of section 113(3A) and sectionof the Maharashtra Regional And Town Planning Act, 1966. In similar way, the Government Resolution dated 12th August, 2010 also supports the contention of Respondent no.1original claimant. This Resolution shows that the Government has accepted the judgment of the learned Single Judge and has authorised CIDCO to represent the Government in the References under section 18 and28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.Therefore, the view taken by the Single Judge is correct.19. The authorities cited by the Appellant CIDCO and the Respondents, except the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Authority, have been considered by the learned Single judge and found the same not applicable to the facts of the present case. As we respectfully concur with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge, it is not necessary for us to dilate on the same. Consequently, we find that the judgment of the learned Single Judge needs no interference.