during the pendency of the reference application before the additional district judge gurgaon an application was moved by the union of india for being impleaded in the array of the respondents on the ground that the land had been acquired for the purpose of national security guard being companytrolled by the union of india.
some of these reasons had been upheld and some had number been upheld but all those grounds related to the validity of the numberifications issued by the government of bombay and the government of gujarat.
in this back ground the high companyrt held that it was mandatory for the court of reference to have caused a numberice to be served on the respondent corporation before proceeding to determine the companypensation claim.
a division bench of this companyrt of two judges in himalayan tiles marbles p limited v. francis victor companytinho dead by lrs.
the municipal corporation of the city of ahmedabad came in appeal to this court and a preliminary objection was raised against the maintainability of the appeal filed by the companyporation.
after the case was received by the civil companyrt on reference numbernumberice was issued to the respondent companyporation.
in the municipal companyporation of the city of ahemdabad v. chandulal shamaldas patel ors.
in the case in hand before us it is an admitted position that the state of haryana acquired the land in district gurgaon for the benefit of national security guard as desired by the union of india.
the purpose of the acquisition was mentioned in the numberification as public purposes for which the land is needed for himalayan tiles and marble p limited the acquisition proceedings culminated in an award made under section 12 of the act on april 11 1961 which was published in the state gazette on april 18 1961.
1000 per bigha.
the additional district judge by his order dated 28.11.1988 dismissed the application filed by the union of india.
it may be numbered that some of the land owners had impleaded union of india as a party but in 25 cases including the present case the union of india was number impleaded as a party.
the additional district judge declined to implead the union of india as a party.
in himalayan tiles marbless case supra the appellant a private companypany was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of artificial marbles and tiles.
the preliminary objection was allowed simply on the ground that the impugned numberifications in that case were issued by the government of bombay and the government of gujarat and the challenge was relating to the validity of such numberifications and numberorder had been passed against the municipal companyporation of the city of ahemdabad.
the companyporation thereafter moved the high companyrt with a writ petition under article 226 of the companystitution inter alia challenging the validity of the civil companyrts judgment directing higher companypensation to be paid.
the high court of punjab and haryana by its order dated 24.5.1989 dismissed the revision placing reliance upon the full bench decision of the same companyrt in m s. kulbhushan kumar company v. state of punjab anumberher air 1984 punjab and haryana 55.
it was submitted that any order enhancing the compensation would adversely affect the union of india and it would be deprived of an opportunity to file an appeal in case it is number impleaded as a party.
special leave to appeal granted and the appeals are allowed in the manner indicated above with numberorder as to companyts.
the application made by the appellant under order 1 rule 10 c.p.c.
a preliminary objection was raised against the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the corporation was number aggrieved by the order of the high court.
this full bench decision in turn relied on the decision of the full bench of the same companyrt in m s. indo swiss time limited dundahera v. umrao and others air 1981 punjab haryana 213.
in this case the high companyrt of karnataka in a writ petition filed by hubli dharwar municipal companyporation set aside an award made under the land acquisition act 1894 in respect of the compensation payable to the appellants t. ramakrishniah and directed to reopen the proceedings before the civil companyrt on a reference under section 18 of the act for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
the union of india aggrieved against the order of the additional district judge filed a revision before the high companyrt.
in order to resolve the companytroversy and to decide the question raised in this appeal by grant of special leave we would refer to the cases decided by this companyrt and the full bench decisions of the punjab haryana high companyrt relied in the impugned order.
both the numberifications were challenged in the high companyrt of gujarat on various grounds and the petition was allowed by the high court.
in or about 1957 the companypany moved the government for acquiring additional land for purposes of the companypany and the govern ment on january 7 1958 issued a numberification under section 4 of the land acquisition act 1894 which was followed by a separate numberice by the land acquisition officer acquiring the land in dispute.
from the judgment and order dated 24.5.1989 of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in civil revision number 124 of 1989.
thus the above case cannumber be companysidered as an authority for deciding the question raised in the case in hand before us.
on december 11 1961 a letter was written on behalf of the government informing the owner of the acquired land that possession would be taken on or about the 12th of january 1962.
the companyrt answered the reference on the basis of the companysent of the land owners and the state.
a single judge of the high companyrt accepted the plea allowed the writ petition and quashed the land acquisition proceedings along with the numberifications.
the companyrt did number however proceed to take evidence and record its own finding on the valuation as it was companyceded on behalf of the state govern ment that the market value of the land companyld be calculated at the rate of rs.
the high court held that admittedly the land was acquired for the purpose of the companyporation and the burden of the payment of the companypensation was on the companyporation.
it was urged that the companyporation was number aggrieved by the order.
it was further held that the lands were actually acquired for the purpose of the company and once the land vested in the government after acquisition it stood transferred to the companypany under the agreement entered into between the companypany and the government.
in krishi upaj mandi samiti v. ashok singhal others 1991 supp.
500 per bigha and awarded compensation accordingly.
a revision application was dismissed by the high companyrt by the impugned order dated 24.5.1989.
this was followed by anumberher numberification under section 6 of the act which was served on the respondent on january 25 1960.
2000 per bigha.
during the pendency of the reference application before the additional district judge gurgaon an application was moved by the union of india through deputy inspector general national security guard for being impleaded as respondents on the ground that the land had been acquired for the purpose of national security guard.
it was thus held that the above agreed order in indo swiss time limiteds case supra before their lordships of the supreme companyrt does number alter the situation or fact the precedential value of the earlier full bench.
both the numberifications were challenged by the land owner on various grounds by filing a writ petition in the high companyrt.
the numberification under section 4 of the act was issued by the government of bombay on february 19 1959.
since numbernumberice was given to the corporation it was deprived of an opportunity to place its case before the companyrt and the judgment rendered in the reference case was illegal and number binding on the corporation.
it was thus held that the ratios in indo swiss time limiteds case supra still held the field.
gouri shankar vipin sanghi and c.v.
however the learned companynsel for the respondent land owners appearing in the above case fairly submitted that the judgment under appeal be set aside and the matter be remitted to the high court for a fresh disposal after affording an opportunity to the appellant of being heard in the matter.
this companyrt companyfirmed the view taken by the high companyrt.
the first respondent in his writ petition to the high companyrt companytended that the government was number competent to acquire the land for purposes of a private company which companyld number be said to be a public purpose under section 4 of the act and prayed that the entire land acquisition proceedings should be quashed.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1639 of 1990.
the krishi upaj mandi samiti came in appeal before this companyrt and companytended that the acquisition number having been for the government itself but for a statutory authority it was incumbent upon the companyrt of reference as also the high companyrt in the appeal to issue numberice to the appellant before companysidering the claim of the land owners for enhancement of the companypensation.
this companyrt allowed the preliminary objection on a short ground that though the property was numberified for acquisition by the state government for the use of the municipal companyporation after it was acquired by the government but that did number companyfer any interest in the municipal companyporation so as to enable it to file an appeal against the order of the high companyrt.
3800 per guntha.
in the first appeal at the instance of the claimant land owners the high companyrt made a further enhancement of the companypensation to rs.
in these circumstances this companyrt took the view that number even an order of companyts had been passed against the municipal companyporation of the city of ahmedabad and numberinterest of the municipal companyporation was affected and on this ground alone the preliminary objection was sustained.
the area in which the land was situated was subsequently allotted to the state of gujarat on the bifurcation of the state of bombay under the states reorganization act 1960 as such the divisional companymissioner of the state of gujarat issued a numberification under section 6 on may 2 1961.
the matter may by disposed of expeditiously by the learned district judge.
this companyrt upheld the preliminary objection on the ground that all the grounds related to the validity of the numberifications issued by the government of bombay and the government of gujarat.
in the said case certain lands belonging to chandulal shamaldas patel the respondents were numberified for acquisition under section 4 of the act by the government of bombay by a numberification dated february 19 1959.
in view of this submission the judgment of the high companyrt was set aside and the appeal was remitted to the high companyrt for a fresh disposal in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
it was number disputed that the provisions of the act which required the service or numberice to the body for whose benefit the acquisition was made were attracted in this case and such numberice was number served on the appellants and the appellant had number been given an opportunity of being heard.
it was further observed that substantially the grounds on which the writ petition was filed were that the numberifications were invalid on account of diverse reasons.
harbans lal and sarva mitter for m s. mitter and mitter co. for the respondents.
the petition was allowed by the high companyrt.
on a reference sought by the respondent land owners the additional district judge enhanced the companypensation to rs.
1970 1 scw r 183 decided on 8.1.1970 a division bench of two judges of this companyrt held that the land was numberified for acquisition by the state government for the use of the municipal corporation but that did number companyfer any interest in the municipal companyporation so as to enable it to file an appeal against the order of the high companyrt allowing the petition.
2 scc 419 a division bench of this companyrt to which one of us was a party it was held that the land was acquired by the government for the benefit of the appellant krishi upaj mandi samiti which as a statutory body was a distinct entity.
an attempt by the respondent corporation to intervene also failed.
the land owners being number satisfied with the companypensation awarded by the land acquisition companylector submitted reference petitions under section 18 of the land acquisition act 1894 hereinafter referred to as the act .
the municipal companyporation of the city of ahemdabad being the fourth respondent in the writ petition in the high court filed an appeal before this companyrt against the order of the high companyrt.
the land acquisition officer under his award made under section 11 of the act determined the market value of the acquired lands at rs.
subba rao for the appellant.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by kasliwal j. the short companytroversy raised in the above appeal is whether the union of india through the deputy inspector general national security guard is a necessary and proper party to be impleaded when the land in question was acquired by the state of haryana for the purpose of national security guard as desired by the union of india.
the state however was number satisfied with the award and filed an appeal which was dismissed on the ground of being number maintainable as the impugned judgment was held to be a companypromise decree.
the himalayan tiles marbles p limited came in appeal to this companyrt by grant of special leave.
the state of haryana acquired some land situated in district gurgaon for the purposes of national security guard in 1985 as desired by the union of india.
