LexKERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD AND ORS. ETC. versus M/S. RAMAPRIYA HOTELS (P) LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD AND ORS. ETC. B c D E F v. M/S. RAMAPRIYA HOTELS (P) LTD. AND ORS. JULY 28, 1994 (K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] Kera/a Land Acquisition Act, 1961: Sections 3 (1), 6, 9, 16, 17 and 18. Section 16(1)--0bject of-Compensation for land acquisitiott-Agree- ment for-More than one person interested in compensation-Entering into agreement of all persons jointly with Collecto,._parties can waive the man- datory provision of-Expression ''All persons interested agree''-Means not only in plural but also singular. Land Acquisitiott-Agreement for compensation between Owner and Collector-Land acquired mortgaged with Bank-Mortgagee Bank not a party to agreemen~ortgagee bank held a person interested in compensation but his non joinder rendered neither the agreement void nor the jurisdiction of Collector to make award void. Section 16( 1)-l'rovis<>-lnterpretation of-Agreement for compensa- tiolt-Notification under Section 3( Ir Requirement of publication of decla- ration-Prescribed period of four years-Reckoning of-Held expression 'such date' refers to the date of agreement and not date of notification under section 3(1). Interpretation of Statutes : Statute-Words of analogous meaning-Interpretation of Statute- Constrnction of-Should be according to intent of Legislature. G Statute--l'rovisiott-Two views possible-Constrnction in favour of sus- taining constitutionality should be preferred. Waiver-Mandatory procedure--l'arty can waive it. The respondent-Company entered into an agreement with the Collec- H tor, under section 16 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961, whereunder 338 KERLA ST AlE HSG. BOARD v. RAMAPRIYA HOlELS (P) LTD. 339 it agreed to accept compensation @ Rs. 1100 per each cent of land to be A acquired. Pursuant thereto a notification under section 3(1) of the Act was published acquiring the land for the housing scheme envisaged by the appellant but the declaration under section 6 was not published within the prescribed period from the date of publication of notification under section 3(1). A fresh notification under section 3(1) issued on June 12, 1979 was upheld by the High Court. A declaration under section 6 was published on January 18, 1981 and after issue of notice under section 9(3) the respondent B was awarded compensation @ Rs. 1100 per each cent, of the land acquired. The respondent-Company's application for reference under section 20 was rejected against which a writ petition was filed in the High Court C which held that (i) no award under section 16 could have been made because the bank to which the property under acquisition was mortgaged was not a party to the Contract; and (ii) by operation of the proviso to sub-section(l) of section 16 since four years had elapsed from the date of the agreement the award based on the agreement became void. Consequent· ly the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Collector to D make reference to the Civil Court under section 20 without reference to the agreement which became void. The Housing Board and the state preferred appeals before this Court contending that (i) it was open to the respondents to waive the E requirement of entering into a contract by all parties; (ii) in the cir- cumstances of the case the respondents were estopped from contending that under section 16 no award can be made in the absence of the mortgagee bank as a party to the agreement; and (iii) the expression "such date" referred to in proviso to section 16(1) is referable to the date of the notification under section 3(1); the finding of the High Court that the F award became void after the expiry of four years from the date of the agreement is clearly erroneous. Dismissing the appeals, this Court HELD : 1. The finding of the High Court that no award could have been made in respect of the respondent-Company is clearly erroneous and unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. (346-D] G 2. The object of section 16(1) of the Kerala and Acquisition Act is to determine market value expeditiously and award compensation in terms of H 340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A agreement to avoid needless delay .. Therefore, in the light of the purpose and object of section 16 "all person" must be interpreted to mean not only in a plural but also singular which would include any one, if more than one person are interested in the compensation, to mutually enter into an agr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.