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

The Appropriate Government issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which was published on 31st March 1983. In furtherance to this Notification, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 31st October 1985. The lands were acquired from the land owners and possession thereafter was taken on 10th December 1985. The SLAO made his Award on 30th November 1987 under Section 11 of the Act. The Award of the Collector was challenged by the Claimants by filing Petitions under Section 18 of the Act. These References were referred by the SLAO to the Court of competent jurisdiction. The Joint District Judge, Nashik, vide his judgment dated 7th April 1995 passed in Land Reference No.500 of 1989 enhancing the compensation payable to the Claimants at the rate of Rs.24,000to Rs.40,000/3. Some of the Claimants who had not preferred References under Section 18 of the Act filed Petitions before the SLAO under Section 28A of the Act. These very Claimants had even filed a Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 1270 of 2002 which was decided by this Court vide its Order dated 3rd May 2002 requiring the Government to hear the Petitions in accordance with law. The Writ Petition was disposed of with direction to decide the Application under Section 28A of the Act within six months. The Applications filed by the Petitioners under Section 28A of the Act were finally disposed of by the SLAO vide judgment dated 20th September 2003 enhancing the compensation and placing the Claimants at parity with the judgment of the Joint District Judge, Nashik dated 7th April 1995.      4. Aggrieved by the Award of the SLAO dated 20th September 2003, the Corporation preferred Writ Petitions before this Court which came to be dismissed vide Order dated 29th November 2005 giving rise to the present Appeals. The Corporation had filed different Writ Petitions i.e. 18 against different Claimants. Separate Appeals have been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in each of those Writ Petitions. Thus, by this Judgment, we will dispose of the 18 Appeals preferred by the Corporation challenging the correctness and legality of the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 29th November 2005.      5. Writ Petitions filed by the Corporation were primarily dismissed by the learned Single Judge on a very short ground. It will be useful to refer to the relevant part of the impugned judgment. The same reads as under:The possession of the land was taken by the government on 10.12.85 and an award has been declared by the SLAO on 30.10.87. Thereafter reference was made by some of the affected persons u/s. 18 and the same was decided by the Civil Court by passing an order and judgment on 7.4.95. Admittedly, the petitioner has come into existence only on 1st October 1998 as mentioned in para 1 of the petition. Thus the petitioner was not in existence till the entire acquisition proceeding was completed and till the enhanced compensation is awarded by the Civil Court under the provision of S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In that view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the purpose of giving a similar benefit to other parties who are also affected by the same award under the provision of S. 28(A) petitioner ought to have been heard has no merits. Petitioner is not concerned with the acquisition proceeding which has been completed prior to incorporation of the petitioner and therefore, contentions raised by the petitioner are without merits. In that view of the matter, there is no substance in the present petition. Petition is accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of the petition, Civil Application does not survive. The same is also dismissed.

Court's reasoning:
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.