AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. K.Raghavacharyulu, learned counsel for the appellant alongwith Mrs. Astha Shukla in WA No. 294/2021, for the petitioner in WPC No. 3806/2021 and respondent No. 2 in WPC No. 3827/2021. Also heard Mr. B.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 17 I.0n WA No. 294/2021, respondents No. 6 to 19 in WPC No. 3806/2021 and for the petitioners in WPC No. 3827/2021, as well as Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent No. 18 in WA No. 294/2021, respondents No. 1 to 5 in WPC No. 3806/2021 and respondent No. 1 in WPC No. 3827/2021.
WA No. 294/2021 is accompanied by an application being IA No. 1 of 2021 for condonation of delay of 1201 days in preferring the appeal against the order dated 12.04.2018 passed in WPC No. 1039/2018.
It is stated in the application that the appellant became aware of the order dated 12.04.2018 passed by this Court in WPC No. 1039/2018, on 13.11.2020, when a letter was forwarded by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) asking the appellant to make payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1.29 Crores. It is further stated that immediately, thereafter, no steps could be taken because of the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequently, this appeal came to be preferred on 07.09.2021.
Mr. B.P.Sharma and Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents do not oppose the application.
On due consideration, delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. IA No. 1 of 2021 stands disposed of.
WPC No. 3806/2021 and WPC No. 3827/2021 are the off-shoots of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 12.04.2018 in WPC No. 1039/2018, out of which WA No. 294/2021 arises.
In WPC No. 1039/2018, the petitioners had contended that a representation dated 19.03.2018 was filed before the Collector, Jagdalpur, District Bastar for grant of compensation of the land acquired from them. Taking note of the grievance expressed, by the order impugned in the appeal, the writ petition was disposed of directing the Collector, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, to consider and decide the said representation dated 19.03.2018 expeditiously and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, after hearing the petitioners. Liberty was also granted to the petitioners to make additional representations, if any, before the concerned authority.
In WPC No. 1039/2018, the National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC) was arrayed as respondent No. 2. Admittedly, no notice was issued to the respondent No. 2 before disposal of the writ petition and thus, the appellant was also not heard.
Pursuant to the directions contained in the order dated 12.04.2018 passed in WPC No. 1039/2018, the petitioners therein were heard and the District Collector, Jagdalpur, passed an order dated 23.02.2021 directing the appellants in WA No. 294/2021 to pay an amount of Rs. 1.29 Crores towards compensation. Subsequently, another order dated 26.07.2021 was passed by the Collector directing the appellant in WA No. 294/2021 to give rehabilitation benefits to the claimants.
Challenging the aforesaid orders dated 23.02.2021 and 26.07.2021, WPC No. 3806/2021 came to be filed by the appellant in WA No. 294/2021. It is pleaded that the appellant in WA No. 294/2021 (writ petitioner in WPC No. 3806/2021) was not heard by the Collector, though it was entitled to be heard before any order was passed.
WPC No. 3827/2021 came to be instituted by the claimants seeking a writ of mandamus directing the appellant in WA No. 294/2021 (writ petitioner in WPC No. 3806/2021) to deposit the amount fixed by the Collector within a time-frame, as may be considered appropriate by this Court.
Mr. K.Raghavacharyulu, learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge committed an error of law in disposing of the writ petition without notice to the appellant (respondent No. 2 in WPC No. 1039/2018) and therefore, the order dated 12.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. He submits that pursuant to the directions given by the learned Single Judge, the Collector had passed the orders dated 23.02.2021 and 26.07.2021 which came to be assailed in WPC No. 3806/2021. It is contended by him that in view of the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act of 1894) and more particularly, in view of Section 3(aa), 3(b) and Section 50 of the Act of 1894, the appellant for which the land is sought to be acquired, is a 'person interested' and therefore, is entitled to be heard before the compensation amount is fixed by the Collector. He places reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) by LRs & Others, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 54.
Mr. B.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 17 in WA No. 294/2021, respondents No. 6 to 19 in WPC No. 3806 of 2021 and for the petitioners in WPC No. 3827 of 2021, very fairly submits that in the attending facts and circumstances, it will be appropriate for this Court to remand the entire matter to the Collector, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, to decide the issue of grant of compensation in presence of the appellant in WA No. 294/2021 as well as in presence of the petitioners in WPC No. 3827 of 2021. He further submits that this Court may fix a time-frame as may be considered appropriate.
In Bhola Nath Sharma (supra), the question that had fallen for consideration was as to whether the Delhi Development Authority, at whose instance the land was acquired and who was asked for payment of compensation, can be treated as a 'person interested' within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act of 1894 and as to whether it was entitled to an opportunity to participate in the proceedings held before the Land Acquisition Collector and the Reference Court for determination of the compensation.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph 42, observed as follows:
"42. In view of the above discussion, we hold that :
(i) the DDA falls within the definition of the expressions "local authority" [Section 3(aa)] and "person interested" [Section 3(b)] of the Act;
(ii) the DDA was entitled to participate in the proceedings held before the Land Acquisition Collector;
(iii) the failure of the Land Acquisition Collector to issue notice to the DDA and give an opportunity to it to adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation payable to the land owners was fatal to the award passed by him;
(iv) the DDA was entitled to notice and opportunity to adduce evidence before the Reference Court could enhance market value of the acquired land entitling the respondents to claim higher compensation and, as no notice or opportunity was given to the DDA by the Reference Court, the judgments rendered by it are liable to be treated as nullity;
(v) the Division Bench of the High Court also committed serious error by further enhancing the amount of compensation payable to the contesting respondents without requiring them to implead the DDA as party respondent so as to enable it to contest their prayer for grant of higher compensation."
A perusal of the above goes to show that the appellant in WA No. 294/2021 is entitled to participate in the proceedings held before the Land Acquisition Collector. It is an admitted position that the appellant in WA No. 294 of 2021 had not been heard by the Collector before passing the impugned orders, which are assailed in WPC No. 3806/2021.
In that view of the matter, the orders dated 23.02.2021 and 26.07.2021 passed by the Collector, Jagdalpur, District Bastar cannot be sustained in law and therefore, the same are set aside and quashed. Accordingly, WPC No. 3806/2021 is allowed.
In view of the setting aside of the aforesaid orders dated 23.02.2021 and 26.07.2021, the order dated 12.04.2018 assailed in WA No. 294/2021 loses all its significance and therefore, no separate orders are called for with regard to the same. WA No. 294/2021 stands disposed of accordingly.
In view of the above determinations, necessarily, WPC No. 3827/2021 is to be dismissed as prayer was made for implementation of the orders passed by the Collector, which are set aside in WPC No. 3806/2021. Ordered accordingly.
The learned counsel for the parties, at this juncture, submit that the parties and/or their duly authorised representatives will appear before the Collector, Bastar, Jagdalpur on 11.01.2022.
In view of the above submission, the parties to the proceedings and/or their authorised representatives will appear before the Collector, Jagdalpur, District Bastar on 11.01.2022. The Collector is directed to conclude the proceedings within a period of four months from 11.01.2022.
No cost.