Nagercoil Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, The Subordinate Judge, George and David Mariakannu

S. Nagamuthu, J.—Challenge in this writ petition is to the Award dated 29.08.1996 made in L.A.O.P.No. 4 of 1990 on the file of

Subordinate Court, Nagercoil. The petitioner is a Co-operative Society governed by the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The land

comprised in T.S.No.J4/13-1 in the village of Nagercoil, Agastheeswaram Taluk in Kanyakumari District belonged to the respondents 3 and 4

herein. For a public purpose, the petitioner made a request for acquiring these lands. Accordingly, acquisition proceedings were initiated and the

same was completed. Thereafter, a Reference u/s 18 of the Act was made at the request of respondents 3 and 4 for determination of just

compensation. The learned Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil took up the matter on a reference made by the District Collector. In the said

proceedings before the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, no notice was served on the petitioner. However, on considering the evidence and

other materials available on record, the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil enhanced the compensation. Challenging the same, the petitioner is

now before this Court.

It is contended by the petitioner that before passing the Award, no notice was served on the petitioner. Therefore, according to the petitioner,

the entire Award proceedings is vitiated and the Award is liable to be set aside. For this proposition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied

upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Indian Rare Earths Limited Vs. The Sub Collector, Land Acquisition Officer,

Padmanabhapuram and Others, and a Judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Neelagangabai and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others,

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would point out that Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 has been amended by the Land

Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 1989 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 90) and by the said amendment, sub-clause (d) to Section 20 has been

introduced, which states that if the acquisition is not made for the Government, the person or authority for whom it is made is also entitled for

notice and this notice is stated to be mandatory.

I have heard the submissions made on either side and perused the records carefully.

Prior to introduction of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 90, there was no specific provision in Section 20 or in any provision of the Act mandating that

notice should be served on any person or authority in whose favour the land is acquired if the said authority is other than the Government. In this

regard, there were disputes and it appears that there were conflicting views expressed as to whether any such notice is required for the authority in

whose favour the acquisition is made. The question precisely came up before a Division Bench of this Court in INDIAN RARE EARTHS LTD

case (cited supra) wherein after having elaborately considered various judgments and also legal position, the Division Bench has held as follows:

...We are satisfied that such a person is vitally interested both in the title to the property as also in the compensation to be paid therefore

because both these factors concern its future course of action and if decided against him, seriously prejudice his rights. Moreover, in view of the

decision of this Court referred to above R.L. Arora Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, . We hold that the appellant was undoubtedly a person

interested as contemplated by Section 18(1) of the Act. The High Court, therefore, committed an error in throwing out the appeal of the appellant

on the ground that it had no locus standi to file an appeal before the Bench.

...It is on account of this fact, the Supreme Court had held in the decision referred to above that if notice is not given to the company or local

authority and the said company or local authority is not afforded opportunity to participate in the reference proceedings, then it will have disastrous

consequences for the company or local authority and therefore, it is imperative that notice should be given to the affected party before the

reference proceedings are enquired into and an award is passed.

It is brought to my notice that considering the above position, a local amendment was brought in the State of Karnataka wherein similar

provision like that of sub-clause (d) to Section 20 which was introduced by Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 90 was introduced. While interpreting the said

provision, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Neelagangabai and Anr. case (cited supra) has held that such notice is mandatory.

I believe that because of the above said Division Bench Judgment, the State of Tamil Nadu thought of amending the Act by introducing sub-

clause (d) to Section 20 by means of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 90. This provision came into force only in the year 1990. As on the date of coming

into force of the said provision by means of the amendment, the proceedings were still pending before the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil in

this matter. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Counsel that as per this amended proceedings also the petitioner should have been issued

notice.

In my considered opinion it is doubtful as to whether the said amended provision is applicable to pending proceedings or it will applicable only

to references which were made subsequent to the amendment. The said doubt need not be resolved in this case because even in the absence of

such sub-clause (d) to Section 20, the Division Bench has interpreted and held that as per Section 20 of the Act which stood prior to the

Amendment, the notice is mandatory. In such view of the matter, since admittedly in this case no notice was issued to the petitioner by the learned

Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, I am inclined to set aside the Award.

In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned Award in L.A.O.P.No. 4 of 1990 dated 29.08.1996 on the file of the second

respondent / Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil is set aside, who shall serve notice upon the petitioner, afford sufficient opportunity to the petitioner as

well as respondents 1,3 and 4 herein and pass appropriate Award within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

However, there will be no order as to costs.