M/S NEYVELY LIGNITE CORPN. LTD. ETC. ETC. versus SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION) NEYVELY AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 567 · Decided: 19-10-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, M.K. MUKHERJEE, S.C. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

M/S NEYVEL Y LIGNITE CORPN. LTD. ETC. ETC. 
A 
54. 
v. 
SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISffiON) 
NEYVELY AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
OCTOBER 19, 1994 
[K RAMASWAMY, M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.C. SEN, JJ.] 
LandAcquisitionAct, 1894: Sections 3(b), 4(1), 11, 18, 26, 50(2) and 
'Person interested'-Scope of 
B 
c 
Held authority for whose benefit land is acquired is person interested 
within the meaning of Section 3(b )--Beneficiary for whose benefit land is 
acquired is entitled to come on record to lead evidence for determination of 
proper compensation-Denial of right to a person interested is in negation of D 
fair and just procedure offending Article 14. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : 
Order I-Rule I 0-'Necessary party'-'P'roper· P'arty'-lmpleading E 
oHand acquired for benefit of an authority-Such an authoritj is a proper 
• 
• 
party to be 1mpleaded. 
A Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
was published acquiring 5200 acres of land for the benefit of the appellant-
Corporation. During the pendency of certain refe~ences-sought by the F 
land-owners for enhancement of compensation--tl1e appellant-Corpora-
tion filed applications for being impleaded as respondent. In order to 
adduce evidence for flXBtion of the proper compensation but the same were 
dismissed by the Civil Court on. the ground that the a11pellant-Corporation 
was not an interested person within the meaning of se<ction 3(b) of the Act. 
In revisions the High Court uplneld the Order of the Civil Court. Further, · G 
in the appeals filed by the State under Section 54 the High Court also held 
that the appellant was not a person Interested. The appellant-Corporation 
preferred appeals before this Court. They also filed writ petitions in the 
High Court challenging the award and de!'ree made under Section 26 but 
the Full Bench dismissed the same holdln,g that the appellant was not a H 
567 
568 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SOPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A person interested. Against the dismissal of writ petitions also appeals were 
preferred before this Court. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
In the connected appeals the appellant-Housing Board challenged 
the award made by the subordinate judge under section 26. Following the 
decision of the Full Bench a single judge of the High Court held that the 
appellant was not a person interested within the meaning of section 3(b). 
The Housing Board preferred appeals to this Court. 
In appeals to this Court on the question whether the appellant is a 
"person interested" within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act: 
Allowing the appeals and setting aside the orders of the High Court, 
this Conrt 
HELD: 1. The High Court had committed manifest error of law in 
holding that the appellant is not a person interested. [581-A) 
2. 
When the beneficiary for whose benefit the land is acquired is 
served with the notice and brought on record at the stage of enquiry by the 
Collector and reference court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 
or in an appeal under Section 54, it/they would be interested to defend the 
award under sections 11 or 26 or would file an appeal independently under 
section 54 etc. against the enhanced compensation. As a necessary or 
proper p;pty affected by the determination of higher compensation, the 
beneficiary must have a right to challenge the correctness of the award 
made by the Reference Court under section 18 or in appeal under Section 
54 etc. Considered from this perspective the appellant-company is an 
interested person within the meaning of section 3(b) of the Act and is also 
a proper party, if not a necessary party under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. 
[579-F-H, 580-A) 
Himalayan Tiles and Marbles (P) Ltd. v. Frencies Victor Coutinho 
(dead) by Lrs. and Ors., [1980) 3 SCR 235; Nee/agangabai and Anr. v. State 
of Kamataka and Ors., [1990) 3 SCC 617; Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v.Ashok 
G Singhal, [1991) Suppl. 2 SCC 419; Union of India and Anr. v. Distt. Judge, 
Udhampur and Ors., JT (1994) 3 SC 629; Union of India v. Sher Singh and 
Ors., [1993] 1 SCC 608; Bihar State Electricity Boord v. State of Bihar and 
Ors., [1994] 2 Scale 355; Union of India v.Kolluni Ramaiah and Ors., [1994) 
1 SCC 367 and Krishnamachari v. The Managing Director, AP SR TC, 
H Hyderabad and Ors., JT (1994) 5 SC 391, relied on. 
NEYVELY LIGNITE CORPN. Lill. v. SPL. TAHSILDAR NEYVEL Y 569 
Santosh Kumar and Ors. v. Central Warehousing Coron. and Anr., A 
[1986] 1 SCR 603, distinguished. 
Municipal Corporation of the City
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.