DCL Maritech Limited vs Government of A.P. and Another

Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.—This application has been taken out by the Official Liquidator acting on behalf of M/s. DCL Maritech Ltd, company under liquidation seeking directions to the 1st respondent, the Land Acquisition Officer & Revenue Divisional Offier, Nellore to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre for land admeasuring Ac. 113.44 cts belonging to the company under liquidation which was acquired for a public purpose. This application has been taken out in terms of Sub-section (1)(e) of Section 457 of the Companies Act r/w Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.

M/s. DCL Maritech Ltd., was ordered by this Court on 19.2.2003 to be wound up, entertaining CP No. 21 of 2002 instituted by M/s. Godavari Packaging Systems, one of the creditors of M/s. DCL Maritech Limited. The Official Liquidator attached to this Court has been appointed as its liquidator. The company under liquidation acquired large extents of land of Ac. 409.42 situated at Krishnapatnam in Nellore District. Out of this extent, 242.72 acres of land has been acquired by the State Government for establishment of a thermal power project through their ordrs passed in G.O.Ms. No. 226 (Revenue Land Acquisition) Department, dated 2.5.1995. Inspite of the objections raised by the company that acquisition of such large extents of land belonging to it will virtually cripple the very objective for which the company was established mainly by developing fish ponds for carrying on business in pisci culture, the State Government has overruled the objections in view of the larger public interest demanding establishment of a thermal power station at Krishnapatnam. An amount of Rs. 3,46,16,639.27 ps was awarded as compensation for the land acquired by the State Government. This money has since been transferred to the credit of the company under liquidation. Subsequently the Government of Andhra Pradesh has also acquired 113.44 acres of land at Krishnapatnam for development of Krishnapatnam port. State Bank of India, one of the bankers of the company under liquidation which has extended credit facilities to the company, has brought the said factor of the acquisition of land belonging to the company under liquidation to the notice of the Official Liquidator during March, 2007. Immediately, the Official Liquidator has taken up the issue with the Land Acquisition Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore, for payment of compensation for these lands. The matter was subsequently pursued in September, 2007 and in November, 2007. Ultimately, the Revenue Divisional Officer responded on 11.12.2007 intimating the fact that the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,91,62,592/- awarded for the acquisition of the company''s land at Krishnapatnam by him has been remitted and deposited with the Principal Senior Civil Judge''s Court, Nellore in terms of Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act as there was no claim made by any one for payment of the compensation amount. Thereafter, the Official Liquidator moved CA No. 76 of 2008 in CP No. 21 of 2002 seeking directions to the Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, to transmit the compensation amount deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer to this Court. The said CA was ordered on 11.2.2008. In compliance with the directions issued therein, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nellore has remitted an amount of Rs. 1,93,34,816/- being the amount of compensation deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer, together with the interest earned thereon, and the amount was remitted on 22.5.2008.

Thereafter, State Bank of India through their letter dated 30.5.2008 intimated the Official Liquidator that one of its officers deputed by the bank had applied for and obtained copies of award passed in Form No. 8 on 10.4.2007 by the Land Acquisition Officer. From a perusal of the award dated 10.4.2007, it became clear that for a small extent of land comprising Ac. 4.15 cts, the parties appeared to have given their consent for passing an award determining the amount of compensation payable to them at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre. Accordingly, the amount of compensation has been paid to the said land owners determining the compensation payable at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre. Whereas for the land belonging to the company under liquidation, which is forming part of the same compact block with the other land for which the compensation has been awarded on consent basis, amount of compensation payable has been determined fixing the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre. He has worked out the solatium payable in terms of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act at the rate of Rs. 36,000/- per acre and the additional market value in terms of Section 23(1)(A) of the Land Acquisition Act at the rate of Rs. 13,216/- per acre for 335 days calculated from 11.5.2006, the date on which publication of the draft notification has been made in the locality up to 10.4.2007, i.e., up to the date of award. Thus, he has worked out the total compensation payable per acre at the rate of Rs. 1,69,216/-. In view of this gross disparity in fixing the amount of compensation, the Official Liquidator has filed the present application seeking directions to the respondent - Land Acquisition Officer to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre as was done in the case of the others whose land of Ac. 4.15 cts which was also simultaneously acquired through the same notification along with the land of the company for the very same public purpose.

The Land Acquisition Officer has contested this application and filed a detailed counter affidavit in the matter. It is pointed out that the State Government through their Special Secretary to Government, Transport, Roads and Buildings (Port) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has submitted a requisition to the District Collector, Nellore, through their Letter No. 14201/P1/2004, dated 28.2.206 for acquisition of land of an extent of Ac. 117.59 cts situated at Krishnapatnam village of Muthukur Mandal, Nellore District for the purpose of development of Krishnapatnam Port. Thus, the process of acquisition of land has been initiated by undertaking survey operations. It was further indicated that the requisitioned land has been divided for convenience sake into seven reaches and the lands belonging to the company under liquidation fell in Reach Nos. 4 and 7. The Revenue Divisional Officer has also collected the information relating to pattedars and enjoyers from Village Account No. 3 (Adangal) and after thorough verification of the entries therein, the proposals for draft notification in terms of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act have been submitted to the District Collector on 30.4.2006. The District Collector, Nellore has approved the draft notification u/s 4(1) on 3.5.2006 followed by approval to the draft notification u/s 6 on 24.6.2006. It was pointed out by the Revenue Divisional Officer that the necessary notification has been got published for the lands falling in Reach No. 7 in Nellore District Gazette on 6.5.2006 and in two daily Telugu newspapers viz., Andhra Bhoomi and Andhra Jyoti in their issues dated 8.5.2006 and 9.5.2006 and the substance of the 4(1) notification has been published in the locality on 11.5.2006. Similarly, for the lands falling in Reach No. 4, notification u/s 4(1) was published in District Gazette on 1.7.2006 and the publication in two newspapers was carried out on 5.7.2006 while the substance was published on 7.7.2006. He has also furnished the details relating to the publication of the draft declaration u/s 6 for these lands. The Land Acquisition Officer has averred that notices u/s 9(1) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking all the interested persons to attend the award enquiry and establish the nature of their interest and claim over the lands proposed for acquisition were issued. It was pointed out that the said notices were got published on the notice boards of the offices of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mandal Development Officer and Sub-Registrar, Gram Panchayat and the nearest police station on 20.11.2006. It was further asserted that individual notices u/s 9(3) and Section 10 the Land Acquisition Act have been issued. But, it was candidly admitted at page 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore as under:

...Notices could not be served on the land owners i.e., M/s. DCL Maritech Ltd., applicant herein, as their whereabouts were not known. Award enquiry was held on 5.12.2006 in the Office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Muthukur. But the applicant company or authorised person on behalf of the applicant''s company did not attend the award enquiry with connected documentary evidence to claim the compensation. Later, the Dsitrict Level Negotiations Committee meeting was held for fixation of market value through negotiations. Even for that meeting no one has attended. Therefore, the then Land Acquisition Officer has passed Award bearing No. 5/2007-08 on 10.4.2007 u/s 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, fixing the land value as noted below, in respect of Reach No. 4 for the applicant''s company land to an extent of Ac. 14.80 cents.

Market value .. Rs. 1,20,000/- Solatium @ 30% .. Rs. 36,000/- Additional M.V. for 278 days From 7.7.2006 (date of last Publication of DN to 10.4.2007 .. date of award .. Rs. 10,968/-

--------------- Total land value per acre .. Rs. 1,66,968/- ---------------

At page 6 of he same counter affidavit, the Land Acquisition Officer has pointed out that the two enjoyers of land viz., Sagilala Chitti Babu and Magunta Gopal Reddy attended the award enquiry and claimed a compensation for Ac. 3 and Ac. 1.15 respectively by producing necessary documentary evidence and gave their consent for the cost of the land at Rs. 2.5 lakhs. He therefore stated as under:

Thus consent Award No. 7/07-08, dt. 10.04.07 u/s 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was passed for an extent of Ac. 4.15 cts belongs to the above said two enjoyers at the above rate and the compensation was paid to the awardees.

It was further pointed out that there is no power available with the Land Acquisition Officer in terms of Section 13A of the Land Acquisition Act to revise the award already passed. The entire material leading up to the award passed by him on 10.4.2007 bearing Award No. 5/07-08 and Award No. 7A/07-08 has been enclosed thereto.

In the above facts and circumstances, the questions that fall for consideration are:

(1) Whether the Land Acquisition Officer is justified in passing the two awards on 10.4.2007 without putting the company on notice in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 9 or not?

(2) Whether the Land Acquisition Officer can redetermine the amount of compensation payable to the applicant company duly entertaining consent on its behalf at par with the other land enjoyers, to whom a consent award was passed fixing the compensation payable at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre or not?

I have heard Sri M. Anil Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator and Sri Somasekhar, learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Land Acquisition).

Learned Counsel for the Official Liquidator has contended that as per Village Account No. 3 which is Adangal, the Land Acquisition Officer is aware that the company M/s. DCL Maritech is the owner of the land in question. By virtue of an order made by this Court on 19.2.2003 made in CP No. 21 of 2002, the above company was ordered to be wound up and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court has been appointed as its liquidator. When once this Court has passed an order ordering for the winding up of any company and the Official Liquidator has been appointed as its liquidator, in terms of Section 446 of the Companies Act, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be commenced, or if pending at the time of its winding up, shall be proceeded with against the company, except by leave of the company court and hence the Land Acquisition Officer ought not to have initiated the legal proceedings in terms of Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act by seeking to deposit the amount of compensation payable for the acquisition of the lands belonging to the company, without obtaining the leave of this Court. Learned Counsel further proceeded that in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 446 of the Companies Act, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, it is the company court which will have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of any suit or proceeding by or against the company any claim made by or against the company where such suit or proceeding has been instituted or such claim or question has arisen before or after the order for winding up of the company has been made. Hence, he submits that the claim of the company for payment of appropriate amount of compensation for the land belonging to it which stood acquired by the State can be dealt with and decided by this Court only, and not by a civil court in terms of Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. It was further contended that in terms of Section 456 of the Companies Act where a winding up order has been made, the liquidator shall take into his custody all the property, effects and actionable claims to which the company is entitled to. Learned Counsel would further submit that Section 457 of the Companies Act has conferred certain powers and functions to be performed by the liquidators appointed for winding up of companies. Sub-section (1)(e) of Section 457 specifically enables the liquidator to do all such things as may be necessary for winding up the affairs of the company and importantly for distributing its assets. Learned Counsel therefore submits that the Company Law being a special piece of legislation and in particular the provisions contained therein relating to the winding up of the companies is again being a special procedure concerning winding up of the affairs of the company, it has got to be followed strictly. Learned Counsel submits that the action of the Land Acquisition Officer in proceeding to pass the award on 10.4.2007 without complying with the mandatory requirement of serving the notice on the company has vitiated the entire exercise culminating in the award. In this context, the learned Counsel for the Official Liquidator would submit that Section 51 of the Companies Act requires all notices meant to be served on any company are required to be served or delivered at its registered office by post under a certificate of posting or by registered post or by leaving it at its registered office. Since the Land Acquisition Officer has not bothered to deliver any such notice in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Companies Act at the registered office of the company, which is at Hyderabad, it follows that without serving the mandatory notice, the Land Acquisition Officer illegally proceeded to pass his award and hence such an award shall be interdicted.

Per contra, the learned Government Pleader would stoutly resist the claim of the Official Liquidator by pointing out that that the Land Acquisition Officer does not adjudicate upon the rights of the parties when he makes an award determining the compensation payable for the compulsorily acquired land by the State for a public purpose and on the other hand his decision fixing the amount of compensation payable as per the prevailing market value of the land, is merely an offer made on behalf of the State through the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and any person who is aggrieved either about the quantum of compensation determined or with regard to the extent of land acquired, they are very much entitled to question the same by seeking a reference in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and then all such questions would be determined by the Civil Court concerned and hence the learned Government Pleader would submit that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Learned Government Pleader would further urge that that what has been done in the instant case would merely amount to making an offer for payment of an appropriate quantum of compensation for the compulsory acquisition of the land made by the State belonging to the company and it is absolutely open to the Official Liquidator to have participated in the award enquiry and it is equally open to him to have given his consent for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- as was done by the other land owners and having not participated in the award enquiry inspite of publication of the notice openly and also at prominent places in and around the land under acquisition, the award of the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be interdicted. The learned Government Pleader would further submit that there is an essential distinction between the award passed under Sub-section (1) to that of the award under Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. The award passed under Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act being the result of a consent executed by the land owner, is incapable of being challenged later on in any respect before the civil court whereas an award passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 11 could have been challenged for its correctness with regard to the fixation of market value before the competent civil court. The Official Liquidator having failed to do so, cannot now turn around and seek for enhancement of the compensation for which the Land Acquisition Officer is not the competent authority.

It is not in dispute that the land belonging to the company has been proposed for acquisition after the order made by this Court on 19.2.2003 winding up the said company. According to the Land Acquisition Officer, the draft notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 proposing the acquisition of the land has been got notified in the Nellore District Gazettes of 6th May, 2006 and 1st July, 2006 respectively. By these dates, the winding up order against the company has been made and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court has been appointed as its liquidator and the Official Liquidator has already taken possession of the various assets of this company. The Land Acquisition Officer has verified the Village Account No. 3 (Adangal) and realised that the company is the owner of these lands. Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act deals with the issuance of notice by the Collector to the persons interested in the land proposed for acquisition. Sub-section (1) of Section 9 mandates the Collector to cause public notice to be given at convenient places setting out the intention of the State to take possession of the land and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him. Sub-section (2) thereof dealt with the contents of the above referred public notice. Whereas Sub-section (3) of Section 9 which will have a bearing on the controversy to be resolved in this case reads as under:

9(3) The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier (if any) of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein or to be entitled to act for persons so interested, as reside or have agents authorised to receive service on their behalf, within the revenue district in which the land is situate.

A close reading of Sub-section (3) distinguishes itself from the public notice contemplated by Sub-section (1). The language employed by Sub-section (3) using the following expressions "the Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier (if any) of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein...." makes the position abundantly clear that it is mandatory for the Collector to serve this notice. While notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 9 is a public notice to be caused and published at convenient places, near about the land proposed for acquisition, what Sub-section (3) mandates the Collector to do is to compulsorily serve a notice on the occupier of such land and also on all such persons known or believed by him to be interested in such land, inviting from them claims for compensation. Sub-section (3) further indicated that the notice must necessarily contain all the particulars which have been talked of in Sub-section (2) inasmuch as Sub-section (3) uses the expression "to the same effect". Thus, I have no doubt in my mind that service of notice in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 9 inviting claims from persons known or believed to be interested therein is mandatory. Further, Sub-section (4) of Section 9 makes it clear that that in case any such person who is interested in the land resides elsewhere and he has no agent to receive the notice, who resides within the revenue district in which the land is situate, then the notice shall be sent to the person interested by post in a letter addressed to him at his last known residence, address or place of business and registered under Sections 28 and 29 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. In fact, the sender of a postal article can have the article registered at the post office at which it is posted and require a receipt issued therefore, in terms of Section 28 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. Sub-section (4) therefore amplifies by making it obligatory for the Collector to serve the notice under Sub-section (3) through a registered post sent to the address or place of business of the person interested. The Collector is not in doubt that the company being the owner, hence is interested in the lands. The `person'' interested in these lands in question is a body corporate and hence Section 51 of the Companies Act required all such notices to be delivered at its registered office. The Registered office of the company under liquidation was not at Nellore, but it is at Hyderabad. The Land Acquisition Officer has not made any such attempt to serve the company by registered post as is required under Sub-section (4) of Section 9 inviting the claims from it for compensation for the land proposed for acquisition. It is in fact candidly admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Page 5 that notice u/s 9(3) could not be served on the company. Without notice being addressed and sent through registered post to the registered office of the company, the notice under Sub-section (3) of Section 9 could not have ever been delivered. Sub-section (3) read with Sub-section (4) of Section 9 mandated the Collector to serve the notice by post. A notice is said to have been served only when the act of delivery of such notice is accomplished. In this regard, it will be useful to have a look at Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which dealt with the meaning of service by post. It has been made clear in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act that where any Central Act uses the expression "serve", the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre- paid and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document. Therefore, until and unless the letter containing the notice under Sub-section (3) of Section 9 is sent by registered post to the registered office of the company, whose lands are sought to be acquired, the service is not liable to have been affected. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that the mandatory notice in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 9 is an important and integral part of the scheme of the statute. In the instant case, the Collector has notified in the Notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Act that the company is the owner of the lands, it has not been served with the notice at all.

A look at Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act makes it clear that on the day fixed for the enquiry, the Collector shall proceed and enquire into the objections which any person interested in the land has stated pursuant to a notice given u/s 9 by him and such objections can be with regard to the measurements or with regard to the value of the land. Therefore, an enquiry could be conducted, completed and an award can be passed only after service of notice u/s 9. It would be a different matter that the person interested inspite of service of notice u/s 9 may not turn up to participate in the enquiry and may not raise any objections either with regard to the measurements or its valuation. It is no doubt true that the enquiry and the award that follows u/s 11 do not involve any quasi judicial exercise on the part of the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer. The enquiry and the award passed u/s 11 are purely acts of the Executive and they are pure and simple administrative functions and actions. The award is merely an offer which is sought to be made by the Collector on behalf of the State for payment of compensation which represents, according to his decision the true prevailing market value for the lands so compulsorily acquired. There is no finality attached to this exercise. It can be validly challenged for the correctness of its contents before the competent civil court. But, nonetheless, this administrative exercise must proceed on a reasonable basis. It cannot be a whimsical exercise nor can it be perverse in its content and scope. Further, the award if it is reasonable and is to the satisfaction of the claimant perhaps it is liable to be accepted once and for all. That is the reason why Sub-section (2) of Section 11 empowers a consent award to be passed in the matter. It is certainly open for a party whose lands are sought to be acquired to give his consent for receiving a fair and reasonable quantum of compensation for the compulsory acquisition and be rid off of further hassles of time consuming litigation. The emphasis that is supplied by the statute that can be gathered from Sub-section (2) of Section 11 is that, if a fair and reasonable quantum of compensation to the satisfaction of the claimant is worked out, a consent award can be passed there under, thus bringing a complete end of all possible speculative elements. Such a provision has been made by the Parliament to bring about a certainty in the affairs of the State. The State would be able to plan its financial outlay in terms of the consent award. The State does not require to make any further contingent allocation of funds on this count. Similarly, the claimants would be free from all hassles as the compensation - what was considered by them was most reasonable and appropriate - would get paid immediately and they don''t need to indulge in wasteful expenses of their time and energy by going around courts for securing the same amount of compensation. They will have the advantage of the immediate availability of the amount of compensation for effective and gainful utilisation by them. Therefore, given a chance, the State as well as the claimant must strive for securing such a consent award which will be going a long way in helping the cause of the State as well as the land oustee simultaneously and to their mutual satisfaction.

The principles underlying the philosophy behind the significance of serving the notice has been spelt in clear terms, long years ago, in the following two judgments in Laxmanrao Kristrao Vs. Provincial Government of Bombay and Another, and in Ganga Ram v. Secretary of State 30 Cal 576. In Laxmanrao Kristrao''s case (supra), the Bombay High Court held as under:

It will be noticed that an obligation is cast upon the Collector to serve a notice on every occupier of the land which is to be acquired. There is also an obligation cast upon him to serve a notice on persons who are known to him to be interested in the land or whom he believes to be interested in the land. Therefore the legislature has made a clear distinction between occupiers of the land and persons who are interested in the land. As far as occupiers are concerned, the Collector must serve a notice upon the occupier. As far as persons interested are concerned, the obligation is cast upon him only if he knows of such persons or believes that there are such persons. With regard to the first class the obligation is absolute; with regard to the second class the obligation is not absolute but is relative and it only arises provided the Collector has knowledge or belief with regard to the existence of the second class of persons. Therefore it is clear that a person who has not been served with a notice u/s 9(3) and who is interested in the land to be acquired can only have a grievance provided he satisfies the Court that the Collector wilfully or fraudulently or perversely omitted to serve the notice contemplated by Section 9(3).

Also, at para (6) of the same judgment it was held as under:

(6) WE also wish to make it clear that in a proper case the Collector might be faxed with constructive notice of the existence of a person who is interested in the land, and if the Collector fails to make proper inquiries with regard to the existence of such a person, the Court may come to the conclusion that the omission to serve notice was wilful. After all, as rights of subjects are affected, it is the duty of government Officers to take proper care that inquiries are made to find out all the persons who are interested in the land which is sought to be acquired, and it may not lie in the mouth of the Collector to say in a proper case that the mere fact that the name of a person interested did not appear in the record of rights was sufficient to entitle him to make no other inquiry and to proceed with the acquisition without serving any notice u/s 9(3 )....

In Ganga Ram v. Secretary of State (supra), the Calcutta High Court held as under:

Where it is known or believed that a parson is interested and yet the collector wilfully and perversely refuses to give him notice, then his proceedings cannot be considered bona fide and should be held to be colourable and therefore inoperative in vesting the land in the government....

Section 28A has been introduced to the Land Acquisition Act by the Amending Act No. 68 of 1984, requiring the Collector to conduct an enquiry after giving notice to all persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard and then make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to them, when it was brought to his notice that the court has allowed to another applicant whose land was also covered by the same notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 4, to whom excess amount of compensation than what was awarded by the Collector was awarded under reference made by him u/s 18. The philosophy enshrined u/s 28A is based upon a salutary principle viz., all persons who are similarly situated need not be driven to courts for securing justice at the hands of the State. Therefore, if one of those persons whose land has also been proposed for compulsory acquisition in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 is aggrieved by the determination of the market value and the offer made for the same in the award passed by the Collector, when approaches the competent civil court u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and if that civil court enhances the amount of compensation payable to such an individual, the same yardstick for determining the compensation payable to the rest of the land owners whose land is sought to be acquired by the same notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 is liable to be adopted, even though such land owners have not bothered to agitate about the correctness and validity of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer by instituting proceedings u/s 18 of the Act. This provision essentially addresses the concept of payment of equal amount of compensation for all the land losers covered by the same notification and simultaneously it is also intended to reduce the litigation in the courts. When once one common yardstick is adopted for determining the market value of a land in respect of one land owner, the same principle should be adopted in the matter of determination of the market value of the land of the rest of the land owners covered by the same notification. Such treatment is intended to bring about parity of treatment. Therefore, one can derive inspiration from the principle enunciated u/s 28A of the Land Acquisition Act for directing the Land Acquisition Officer to redetermine the amount of compensation payable to another owner of the land at the same rate as was paid to yet another land owner whose land stood acquired by the same notification.

In the instant case, on the ground that two land owners have given their consent, a separate award bearing No. 7/07-08 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on the same day viz., 10.4.2007 determining the total amount of compensation payable to them at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre. The extent of land involved in that award was only Ac. 4.15 cts. If only notice u/s 9(3) has been served by the Land Acquisition Officer, the Official Liquidator also would have been granted the necessary permission by this Court to give his consent for payment of compensation at the same rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre. In principle, I am not able to find any distinction between the consent executed by those individuals prior to 10.4.2007 and the consent now to be executed by the Official Liquidator in whose custody the assets of the company under liquidation are lying.

I, therefore, agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the Official Liquidator that it is this Court that has got the power to deal with all issues concerning the claims liable to be made by the company under liquidation for purposes of distribution of its assets amongst its creditors. For that purpose, the provisions contained in the Companies Act are liable to be construed as a special piece of legislation and the Companies Act being a subsequent legislation made by the Parliament, it must be construed that the expression "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law" found in Section 446(2) of the Companies Act would render it clear that it is only the company court which is required to exercise such a jurisdiction. This piece of provision has been incorporated in the Companies Act to achieve a larger public purpose, viz., to avoid scramble amongst the various creditors of the company under liquidation. It would also avoid multiplicity of legal proceedings and at various places and courts. It is intended to avoid conflicting decisions to emerge from various courts. It was therefore only appropriate that the court which ordered for the winding up of the company alone should deal with all claims by or against such a company. It would also help in appropriately and rateably distributing the assets amongst the creditors of the company in winding up as well as observing the priority amongst them as spelt out u/s 529A of the Companies Act properly and correctly also. For the aforesaid reasons, I find merit in the contentions canvassed on behalf of the company under liquidation and I therefore direct the 1st respondent to re-determine the amount of compensation payable for the land of an extent of Ac. 113.44 cts belonging to it which 10 stood acquired in terms of the notifications published in the District Gazettes of Nellore under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 on 6th May, 2006 and 1st July, 2006 at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre.

For this purpose, I direct the Official Liquidator to convey his unequivocal consent to accept and receive compensation for the lands belonging to the company under liquidation acquired by the State compulsorily at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre, within 30 days from today. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer shall pass a fresh award of compensation payable to the company under liquidation. Since the 1st respondent has already deposited the amount of compensation as determined by him before the civil court in terms of Sections 30 and 31 and the Civil Court in turn has made over those proceeds to this Court, the Land Acquisition Officer is now directed to pay the balance amount of compensation after re-determining the value at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre and deposit the differential amount before this Court on or before 31.1.2010 to the credit of the Company Petition No. 21 of 2002. With this the CA No. 700 of 2008 stands allowed. No costs.