LexILLA ROY CHOWDHURY versus SHYAMALI DAS AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 9 S.C.R. 239 ILLA ROY CHOWDHURY v. SHYAMALI DAS AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No.3638 of 2008) MAY 16, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] A B Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 30 and 31 - Effect of the order of High Court allowing the Re$pondent to file appropri- ate application before the Collector for reference in terms of ss. 30 and 31 which was a conditional order- Held: If a condi- C tional order was passed, with a view to derive benefit thereun- der, it was obligatory on the part of Respondent to satisfy the condition precedent therefor - If the condition precedent was not satisfied, the question of taking advantage thereof would • not arise. D In a matter relating to property acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a reference was made by the Collector in terms of the provisions thereof. The facts of the matter were noticed by a Bench of this Court in an earlier case. One of the questions which arose for con- E sideration therein was as to whether the First Respon- dent, in terms of an observation made by the High Court, had filed an application for reference under ss.30 and 31 of the said Act. This Court noticing that no such applica- tion had been filed, held that the First Respondent was F not entitled to be impleaded as a party. In the aforementioned premise, the contesting re- spondents herein filed a writ petition before the High Court, which by the impugned judgment, directed the G concerned respondents to dispose of the First Respondent's application for reference in terms of ss. 30 and 31 of the Act. 239 H 240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R. A In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the impugned judgment of the High Court could not be sustained as no such application had been filed as found by this Court in the earlier case. The question which arose for consideration before 8 this Court in the present appeal was as to what would be the effect of the order of the High Court allowing the First Respondent to file an appropriate application before the ~ Collector for reference in terms of ss. 30 and 31 of the Act which was a conditional order, when the conditions pre- C cedent therefor were not satisfied. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1.1. If a conditional order was passed, with a view to derive a benefit thereunder, it was obligatory on D the part of the respondent to satisfy the condition prece- dent therefor. If the condition precedent has not been satisfied, the question of taking advantage thereof would not arise. [Para 14] [245-C] 1.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no E fruitful purpose would be served in allowing the matter to proceed. [Para 16] [246-D-E] Shyamali Das v. Illa Chowdhry, (2006) 12 SCC 300- re- ferred to. F CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3638 of 2008 From the final Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2006 of the High Court at Calcutta In W.P. No. 27264 of 2006 G Bijan Kumar Ghosh, R.K. Gupta, S.K. Gupta, Arun Yadav and A.N. Baradaiyar for the Appellant. Pradip K. Ghosh, Chinmoy A. Khaladhar, Rukhsana Choudhary, Anindita Gupta, Rajesh Srivastava, Tara Chandra H Sharma, Neelam Sharma, Rajeev Sharma and Rameshwar • ILLA ROY CHOWDHURY v. SHYAMALI DAS 241 + AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J. ] Prasad Goyal for the Respondents. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted. 1. This petition is directed against a judgment and order B ;. dated 201h December, 2006 passed by the High Court of ~ Calcutta in Writ Petition No. 27264 of 2006. By reason of the said order the High Court directed the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as also the other concerned respon- dents, added therein to dispose of the First Respondent's ap- c plication for reference in terms of Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The matter relates to a property acquired under the said Act. A reference was made by the Collector in terms of the pro- ~ visions thereof. First Respondent intended to be impleaded as D the party therein. The same was rejected. 3. Contesting parties herein claimed themselves to be the heirs and legal representatives of Rani Rashmoni. We need not state the facts of the matter in detail as the same has been E noticed by a Bench of this Court in Shyamali Das v. Illa Chowdhry, (2006) 12 sec 300. One of the questions which arose for consideration therein ",( was as to whethe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.