N. KRISHNAMACHARI versus THE MANAGING DIRECTOR APSRTC, HYDERABAD AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 608 · Decided: 12-08-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
N. KRISHNAMACHARI 
v. 
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR APSRTC, HYDERABAD AND ORS. 
AUGUST 12, 1994 
B 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Limd Acquisition Act 1894: Sections 3(b), 4(1) and 6. 
State-Land acquisition--<::hallenge-Beneficiary of land-'-Wltether has 
C locus standi to be impleaded as necessary parry-Acquisition-Notifica-
tio,,...:...Oeciaration--<::ha/lenge to acquisition-Quashing of declaration and 
sustaining the notification-Validity of 
In the Land Acquisition proceedings initiated by the State of Andhra 
Pradesh, in which Respondent-Corporation was a beneficiary, the Revision 
D Petition filed by the respondent-Corporation was dismissed by the High 
Court on the ground that Review does not lie at the instance of the 
Respondent- Corporation. However, in the review petition relating to the 
interest of the petitioner the Division Bench set aside the order quashing 
the Notification under section 4(1) and upheld the declaration published 
E under section 6. 
In this Court it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that (i) on 
the question of locus standl of beneficiary to be impleaded as a party there 
was conflict of decisions of this Court in The Municipal Corporation of the 
City of Ahmedabad v. Chandula/ Shamaldas Patel & Ors., (1971] 3 S.C.C. 
F 
821 and Himalyan Tiles and Maro/es (P) Ltd. v. Francis Victor Coutinho, 
(1980] 3 SCR 235; (ii) there is a conflict of operation of the orders in two 
cases regarding the same notification published under section 4(1) which 
was quashed at the instance or others in this case the declaration alone 
has been quashed sustaining the notification under section 4. 
G 
Dismissing the petition, this Court 
HELD : 1. Respondent-Corporation Is a person interested within the 
meaning or section 3(b) or the Land Acquisition Act and that, therefore, it 
was entitled to support the validity of the notification issued under section 
H 4(1) or the Act when it was the subject matter of the challenge in the High 
608 
N. KRISHNAMACHARI v. APSRTC, HYDERABAD 
609 
Court. The High Court is, therefore, not right in its conclusion that the A 
corporation is not an interested party and has committed grievous error 
of law in refusing the Review Petition. [611·D, El 
2. The omission to bring to the notice of the· court important 
provisions of law constitutes an infirmity in the judgment. Section 3(b) B 
defined in wide language, would bring within Its ambit the beneficiary to 
be a person interested. This was not broughtto the notice of the Court in 
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation's case. However, in view of the later 
development of law in later decisions starting with Himalyan Tiles Case. 
the conRict no longer subsists. (611-B, DJ 
Himalyan Tiles and Marbles (P) Ltd. v. Francis Victor Coutinho, 
(1980] 3 S.C.R. 235, referred to. 
c 
The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Chandulal 
Shamaldas Patel & Ors., (1971) 3 S.C.C. 821, explained and held per D 
incuriam. 
3. Notification under section 4(1) was published on July 8, 1988 and 
substance was published on July 28, 1988, paper publication too was done .. 
Immediately, the Writ Petitions were filed and further proceedings were 
stayed by the High Court even before the declaration was published. Under E 
these.circumstances, the declaration section 6 published on July 11, 1988 
obviously was illegal. Accordingly, the declaration alone was rightly 
quashed. [ 611 ·G, HJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Special Leave Petition F 
(Civil) No. 12213 of 1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.4.94 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in Rev. W.P.M.P.No. 21086 of 1993. 
K. Madhava Reddy, D. Prakash Recidy and Mrs. D. Bharatbi Reddy G 
for the Petitioner. 
B. Parthasarathy for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court .was delivered : 
H 
A 
B 
610 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
The Government of Andhra pradesh published the Notification 
under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on July 8, 1988 acquiring 
certain lands for the construction of bus stand complex in Tirupathi town 
(Lord Balaji Pilgrimage centre) followed by a declaration issued under s.6 
with which we would later deal with. The notification was challenged by 
the interested persons including the petitioner In W.P. Nos. 838/90, 
12450/88, 12919/88 and 13631/88. In some of the Writ Petitions, the 
A.P.S.R.T.C. - the beneficiary impleaded itself as a party respondent to the 
Writ Petitions. When the Writ Petition had come u
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.