TMI Blog1980 (3) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingly, on the 7th January, 1958, the Government issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') which was followed by a separate notice by the Land Acquisition officer acquiring the land in dispute. This was followed by another notification under s. 6 of the Act which was served on the respondent on the 25th January, 1960. In pursuance of these notifications the acquisition proceedings went on which culminated in an award made under s. 12 of the Act on April 11, 1961, which was published in the State Gazette on April 18, 1961. On December 11, 1961, a letter was written on behalf of the Government informing the owner of the acquired land that possession would be taken on or about the 12th of January 1962. The purpose of the acquisition, as mentioned in the notification, was 'public purposes for which the land is needed for Himalayan Tiles Marbles (Pvt.) Ltd'. The first respondent in the writ petition filed in the High Court before a Single Judge prayed that the entire land acquisition proceedings should be quashed because the land was not acquired for any public purpose as contemplated by s. 4 of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (I) of section 40 of the principal Act, be deemed to have been made for the purpose mentioned in clause (a) of the said sub-section, and accordingly every such acquisition shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been, as valid as if the provisions of sections 40 and 41 of the principal Act, as amended by this Act, were in force at all material times when such acquisition was made or proceeding was held or order was made or agreement was entered into or action I was taken.... This amending Act was also challenged in the case of R.L. Arora v. State of Uttar Pradesh ors., 'where this Court upheld its constitutional validity subject to certain corrosions. 'The Appellant contended before us that in view of the later decision of the Supreme Court the previous decision of this Court stood superseded and the land acquisition proceedings taken even before the amendments were validated. In support of this argument, Dr. Chitale drew our attention to various provisions of the Act. Before, however, deciding the question as to whether or not the proceedings taken under s. 4 were cured by the amending Act, we would first deal with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uantum of compensation. So far as this aspect of matter is concerned, there appears to be a general consensus of judicial opinion that even though the company may not have any title to the property yet it certainly has a right to appear and put forward its case in the matter of determination of the quantum of compensation. In the case of Sunder Lal v. Paramsukh das(l) this Court observed as follows: It will be noticed that it is an inclusive definition. It is not necessary that in order to fall within the definition a person should claim an interest in land, which has been acquired. A person becomes a person interested if he claims an interest in compensation to be awarded. It seems to us that Paramsukhdas is a person interested within s. 3(b) of the Act because he claims an interest in compensation. It seems to us that Paramsukhdas was clearly a person interested in the objections which were pending before the Court in the references made to it and that he was also a person whose interest would be affected by the objections, within s.2l. He was accordingly entitled to be made a party. In the case of The Hindustan Sanitaryware and Industries Ltd. Bhadurgarh Anr. v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be made on account of the acquisition of land under the Act. The expression 'person interested' is Every comprehensive and it does not profess to give an exhaustive definition. The expression 'person interested' has been interpreted by various Courts, and the trend of the opinion seems to be that I should give a liberal interpretation ... On a review of the case-law on the subject, it seems to me that the expression 'person interested' does not require that a person must really have an interest in the land sought to be acquired. It is enough if he claims an interest in compensation, as distinguished from an interest in the property sought to be acquired. As long as a person claims a interest in the compensation, he is a person interested within the meaning of the definition of that expression. The only case which appears to have taken a contrary view is a Division Bench decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of State of Orissa through the Land Acquisition Collector, Sambalpur v. Amarandra Pratap Singh Anr., (2) where the High Court held that the expression 'person interested' did not include a local authority or a company on whose beha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idity of s. 4 and other amendments, this Court laid down certain conditions which had to be fulfilled if an acquisition made prior to July 20, 1962 was held to be valid. In this connection, 11 reliance was placed by learned counsel for the respondents on the following passage from R.L. Arrora's case (supra): Therefore before s. 7 can validate an acquisition made before July 20, 1962, it must first be shown that the acquisition is complete and the land acquired has vested in Government. This means that the land acquired has vested in Government either under s. 16 or s. 17(1) of the Act. Thus s. 7 of the Amendment Act validates such acquisitions in which property has vested absolutely in Government either under s. 16 or s. 17(1). Secondly s. 7 of the Amendment Act provides that where acquisition has been made for a company before July 20, 1962 or purported to have been made under cl.(a) or cl. (b) of s. 40(1) and those clauses do not apply in view of the interpretation put thereon in R.L. Arora's case [1962 (2) Supp. S.C.R. 149], it shall be deemed that the acquisition was for the purpose mentioned in cl. (aa) as inserted in s.40(1) of the Act by the Amendment Act. Thirdl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute between the petitioners and the respondents that the petitioners are the owners of the said immovable property. The petitioners were at all times and still are in possession of the said immovable properties. According to this averment, it is clearly pleaded that inspite of the notifications, the possession had not been given to the Government and the respondents (petitioners before the High Court) were still in possession of the properties in question. A similar averment has been made in para 15 of the petition which may be extracted thus:- The petitioners say that they are still in possession of the said lands and possession of the said lands has not been taken away from them and the tenants of the petitioners numbering about 53 at present are in physical] occupation of the same. It was also alleged that the Government had threatened the petitioners in the High Court that possession would be taken through police but despite such threats given by the Government, the petitioners were still in possession of the said lands and the structures were in possession of the tenants. The Government in its reply-affidavit did not deny these averments. On the other hand, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
