The
Project Officer, Vs. VS [2001] Insc 370 (7 August 2001)
S. Rajendra
Babu & Doraiswamy Raju Rajendra Babu, J. :
J U D
G M E N T
Leave
granted.
In
respect of certain lands acquired for the purpose of Singareni Colleries
Company Limited, a Government company, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the
market value at Rs. 4,000/- per acre for dry land and Rs.6,000/- per acre for
wet land. The aggrieved claimants obtained a reference to civil court for
enhancement of compensation which was granted by fixing the rate at Rs.
40,000/- per acre. On coming to know of the judgment made by the civil court
enhancing the compensation, the appellants filed a writ petition in the High
Court seeking for quashing of the order and decree made in the reference
principally on the ground that they were not made parties to the proceedings.
The appellants also filed another writ petition seeking stay of the operation
of the order and decree of the civil court. In the latter petition while
directing issue of notice to the claimants the learned single Judge of the High
Court granted interim stay of the operation of the order made by the civil
court. In the mean while, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred an appeal
against the order of the civil court in which an application was also filed
seeking interim stay. The Division Bench of the High Court in the appeal
preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer directed issuance of notice to the
respondents with an order of stay of the execution of the decree on the
condition that the appellants in the said appeal, namely, the Land Acquisition
Officer, was to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per acre and proportionate
statutory benefits within ten weeks from that date and in the event of the
appellants failing to deposit, the order would stand vacated.
The
learned single Judge of the High Court, however, did not find any reason to
vacate the interim stay granted by him earlier in the writ proceedings
initiated by the appellants. On a representation being made on behalf of the
claimants that the writ petition be heard along with the said appeal, the two
matters were directed to be clubbed together. The respondents preferred a writ
appeal against the order made by the learned single Judge granting the interim
stay of the order made by the civil court. The said writ appeal was dismissed
on July 18, 2000 by the Division Bench of the High
Court on merit. Thereafter, on November 18, 2000,
another Division Bench made another order directing the appellants to deposit
the compensation as directed in the appeal filed against the order of the civil
court within two months from the date of the order failing which the interim
stay granted in the earlier writ petition would stand vacated. It is against
this order that this appeal is preferred by special leave.
The
basic question raised in the writ petition filed by the appellants is that the order
made by the civil court enhancing the compensation and the proceedings thereto
are not binding on them inasmuch as they were not parties to the proceedings in
the reference court. When that question is yet to be adjudicated, it would be
in fitness of things that an interim order been granted by the High Court and,
particularly when the claimants appeal against the order made by the learned
single Judge in the writ petition having stood dismissed by another Division
Bench, it was not appropriate for the High Court to have passed an order as
impugned herein. The appropriate course was to hear the writ petition as well
as the appeal filed by the Land Acquisition Officer together and dispose of the
matters. Ultimately, the burden will be upon the appellants to pay the
compensation. Therefore, until their writ petition is decided, no effective
order could have been made in respect of payment of compensation arising under
the proceedings.
In
that view of the matter, we set aside the order made in the Writ Miscellaneous
Petition No. 207 of 2000 in Writ Petition No. 19287 of 1999 and restore the
case to its file to be considered along with the connected appeals that have
been filed by the Land Acquisition Officer or by the claimants, if any. If any
other writ or other proceedings is pending, the same shall also be clubbed with
the same to be heard and disposed of by an appropriate Division Bench of the
High Court.
The
appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.
..J.
[ S.
RAJENDRA BABU ] J.
[
DORAISWAMY RAJU ] AUGUST
07, 2001.
Back