AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.—The revision petitioner claiming that he is a cultivating tenant in respect of the lands owned by the claimants,
viz., the respondents 1 to 6 herein and which have been acquired in the land acquisition proceedings filed I.A.No.99 of 1999 to implead him in the
payment out petition in I.A.No.18 of 1999 in L.A.O.P.No.27 of 1994 relating to the compensation amount as per the award made in the said land
acquisition proceedings on the file of the Principal District Court, Pondicherry. The petition I.A.No.99 of 1999 was dismissed. Therefore, this Civil
Revision Petition has been filed by him.
In the petition I.A.No.99 of 1999, the revision petitioner claimed that he is a cultivating tenant of the acquired lands for the past 25 years and the
claimants, viz., the respondents 1 to 6 herein, who are the owners of the lands acquired, have filed I.A.No.18 of 1999 to withdraw the
compensation amount as per award made in the land acquisition proceedings without impleading him though the revision petitioner is also entitled
for compensation as per law. The revision petitioner came to know about the award only on seeing publication made in Tamil Daily ""Thinamalar
on 8.5.1999. The revision petitioner also caused lawyer notice on 17.6.1990 to the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) to add him as a party and
making similar request he filed I.A.No.99 of 1999.
The petition was resisted in the counter that the revision petitioner is not a cultivating tenant in respect of the lands acquired and as such, he is
not an interested person in the land acquisition proceedings. Pursuant to the award made, the claimants, viz., the respondents 1 to 6 herein alone
are entitled to the compensation amount in view of the fact that they are the owners of the landed properties, as such, the revision petitioner is not a
necessary party in the payment out petition. It is further stated that the eviction proceedings have been initiated against the revision petitioner and
the lands have to be delivered. The revision petitioner has been delaying the proceedings despite the fact the remand made by this Court and the
order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court to dispose of the matters within six months quantifying the arrears payable by him in which award has also
been made by the Revenue Court. The revision petition filed by him in this Court against such order is pending.
The Principal District Court, Pondicherry dismissed the petition holding that the revision petitioner being the cultivating tenant is not a party
before the award enquiry and also not a party as per the reference made u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act passed by the Deputy Collector-cum-
Land Acquisition Officer and so he need not be impleaded as a party in the payment out petition I.A.No.18 of 1999 filed by the
claimants/respondents 1 to 6 herein/the owners in respect of the lands acquired pursuant to the award made in the land acquisition proceedings.
The order is challenged in this revision petition.
The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that inasmuch as the revision petitioner is the cultivating tenant in respect of the lands
acquired in the land acquisition proceedings owned by the claimants/respondents 1 to 6 herein, he being the person interested as contemplated
under the Land Acquisition Act is a necessary party to be impleaded in the payment out petition I.A.No.18 of 1999 filed by the claimants/
respondents 1 to 6 to withdraw the compensation made as per award in the land acquisition proceedings. In this regard, the learned counsel also
pointed out that despite the fact that he is a cultivating tenant under the claimants/respondents 1 to 6 herein, he was not impleaded in the acquisition
proceedings by causing notice and as such, he could not participate in the land acquisition proceedings. The learned counsel has relied on the
decision in Mangatram and others - vs. - State of Haryana and others reported in (1996)9 S.C.C. 664, in which the Supreme Court has held that
on the apportionment of compensation amount awarded in the land acquisition proceedings, the tenants are entitled to 3/4 of the compensation and
the landlord is entitled to 1/4 of the compensation as well in the additional amount u/s 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The other decision
relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is Katari Satyanarayana and others Vs. The District Collector, Krishna at
Machilipatnam, , in which a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held in paragraph 8:-
. . .a statutory tenant would be a ""person interested"",. . . From a reading of the definition of person interested in section 3(b) of the Land
Acquisition Act, it is clear that for objecting to the acquisition of any land it is enough if the objector can claim an interest in compensation for the
land under acquisition.
The learned counsel for the respondents herein submitted that the revision petitioner has not proved that he is a cultivating tenant in respect of
the lands acquired and owned by the claimants/respondents 1 to 6 herein and the notice was caused in the Tamil Daily ""Thinamalar"" only to find
out as to whether other legal representatives in respect of one of the deceased claimants. The learned counsel also submitted that in fact the
revision petitioner filed petitions to reopen the land acquisition proceedings and to implead him in the said proceedings and the said petitions are
pending. Though it is stated in the counter filed by the claimants/respondents 1 to 6 herein in I.A.No.99 of 1989 that the revision petitioner is facing
eviction proceedings and the lands have to be delivered, no documents have been filed to that effect. Therefore, it is clear that the revision
petitioner is a cultivating tenant in respect of the lands acquired under the claimants/respondents 1 to 6 herein.
Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reads thus:-
the expression ""person interested"" includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under
this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land;
It is settled as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1996)9 S.C.C. 664 (cited supra) that the cultivating tenant is the person
interested within the meaning of section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act. It appears that no notice was caused as contemplated under the Land
Acquisition Act despite the fact, according to him, that he is the cultivating tenant of the lands acquired and owned by the claimants/respondents 1
to 6. If it is proved that the revision petitioner is a cultivating tenant under the land Acquisition Act, certainly he is a necessary party to claim
compensation amount awarded pursuant to the acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands cultivated by him which are owned by the
claimants/respondents 1 to 6 herein. The claimants/respondents 1 to 6 already filed I.A.No.18 of 1999, payment out petition, to withdraw the
compensation amount awarded in the land acquisition proceedings. It follows the revision petitioner is a necessary party in the said petition. While
so, the dismissal of the said petition without correctly appreciating the facts by the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry cannot be said to be
proper.
In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 7.12.1999 made in I.A.No.99 of 1999 in I.A.No.18 of 1999 in
L.A.O.P.No.27 of 1994 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pondicherry is set aside. The Principal District Court, Pondicherry is directed to
restore the I.A.No.99 of 1999 and implead the revision petitioner as a party in I.A.No.18 of 1999 and dispose the same in accordance with law
along with the other petitions, viz., to reopen the land acquisition proceedings etc., which are said to be pending. No costs. Consequently, the
connected C.M.P.No.22046 of 1999 is closed.