The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board vs The Land Acquisition Officer and Others

In these appeals claimants have entered appearance. As far as the Land Acquisition Officer is concerned, the learned Government Advocate

takes notice. As these appeals involve short question, the same are admitted and are heard for final disposal.

These appeals are preferred against a common order dated 15.11.1994 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 10788, 10789 and

10790 of 1994, preferred by the Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Madras, who is the appellant

in all these appeals.

Vast extent of land is acquired for the use of the appellant. An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer as long back as on

20.1.1988. Thereafter, there is a reference at the instance of the claimants in the civil court and the civil court also passed an award on 19.1.1989.

We are informed that being aggrieved by the Civil Court''s award, the Land Acquisition Officer has filed A.S.Nos.657 to 659 of 1989 before this

Court and the same are pending on the file of this Court. It is also submitted at the bar that the possession of the land was obtained on 15.8.1979.

However, no material is placed before this Court to that effect, because, as already stated, the Award was passed on 20.1.1988. It is also not

brought to our notice whether the acquisition was started on applying the urgency clause, That apart, the contention of the appellant in the writ

petition is that the civil court has acted illegally in passing the award without issuing notice to the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board,

for whose benefit the lands are acquired and as the cost of the acquisition is to be borne by it. No doubt the State amendment to that effect was

effected on 9.5.1990 to the Land Acquisition Act. However, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in N. Krishnamachari Vs. Managing

Director, APSRTC, Hyderabad and Others, the body for whose benefit the acquisition is made, becomes a person interested, as defined in

Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, and as such he/it would be entitled to be heard before the award is passed by the civil court on a

reference to it. Therefore, the contention raised before us is that the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Neyveli Lignite

Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rangaswamy and Others, is no more good law, as the same has been reversed by the Supreme Court in N. Jayalakshmi

Ammal and another Vs. R. Gopala Pathar and another, .

The learned Single Judge has rejected the prayer of the appellant to quash the award and to remit the matter to the civil court for deciding the

reference after affording an opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence and also for personal hearing. However, the learned Single Judge has

made it clear, it is open to the appellant to get itself impleaded as party-respondent in the appeals, so that the requisite opportunity may be

available to it of being heard and also for producing evidence, if any. We do not, therefore, consider it necessary to decide the contention of Mr.

N.R. Chandran, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that as the award of the Civil Court has been passed without affording an opportunity to

the appellant it is a nullity, and therefore, the award as passed has to be set aside and the reference has to be remitted to the civil court, in view of

the very same decision of the Supreme Court in N. Jayalakshmi Ammal and another Vs. R. Gopala Pathar and another, , referred to above. In a

similar situation the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has directed the writ petitions, to be treated as appeals properly filed u/s 54 of the Act,

and directed to deal with the same as appeals along with the appeals filed by the State, pending on the file of this High Court. With reference to the

reference pending before the Subordinate Judge, the Supreme Court has directed to implead the Neyveli Lignite Corporation as party respondents

and to give reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the claimant and examine witness or witnesses on its side to rebut

the evidence for higher compensation. The Supreme Court has further observed that the Neyveli Lignite Corporation would be entitled to be heard

in support of determination of just and proper compensation. That being the position, we are of the view, that instead of making the appellant to file

an application for impleading it as a party respondent, in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, the appellant herein can be

directed to be impleaded as one of the appellants in A.S.Nos.657 to 659 ofl989 which are filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, as the interests of

the Land Acquisition Officer and that of the appellant do not conflict. Therefore, we direct that the appellant herein be impleaded as an appellant in

the said pending appeals, so that it can have requisite opportunity. We accordingly dispose of these Writ Appeals in the following terms:-

The common order dated 15.11.1994 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.10788, 10789 and 10790 of 1994 is modified. The

appellant is permitted to file a formal application in A.S.Nos.657 to 659 of 1989 to get itself impleaded as appellant No. 2, within a period of one

month from today. In that event, such application shall be allowed and the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board shall be impleaded as

appellant No. 2. It is open to the appellant herein which becomes appellant No. 2 in A.S.Nos.657 and 659 of 1989 to raise such additional

grounds as are considered necessary and are permissible in law and in such event, those contentions be considered in the above appeals in the light

of a decision of the Supreme Court in the above N. Jayalakshmi Ammal and another Vs. R. Gopala Pathar and another, . No costs.