LexSATISH KUMAR GUPTA ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(20 l 7J 1 S.C.R. 767 SATISH KUMAR GUPTA ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ETC. (CivilAppealNos.1587-1636of2017) FEBRUARY 21, 2017 [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALLT, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, .1894 - Post-acquisition allottee of land - If necessary or proper party or has any locus to be heard in the matter of determination of compensation - Held: Mere faci that Government chooses to determine the allotment price with reference to compensation price determined by the court, does not provide any locus to allottee to contest the claim for enhancement of compensation - Furthe1; the lack of sincerity on the part of the State Authority for whose benefit the acquisition was mcide, not a valid grdund to permit po,•t-acquisition allottee to be treated as a necessary or property authority u/Or. I, r. 10 to such proceedings - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. [. I'. 10 . '· · I Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD:l.1 The post-acquisition allottee has no locus to be heard in the matter and is neither a necessary nor a proper party. [Para 18] [777-H; 778-A] 1.2 The acquisition may either be for a "public purpose" as defined u/s. 3(1) or for a company under Part-VII of the Land Acquisition Act. If the acquisition is for a public purpose, as the instant c_ase, the land vests in the State after the Collector makes an award and the possession is taken. Till the award is made, no person other than ·state comes into the picture. Once the land vests in the State, the acquisition is complete. Any transferee from the State is not concerned with the process of acquisition. The State may transfer the land by public auction or by allotment at any price with which the person whose land is acquired has no concern. Mere fact that the Government chooses to determine the allQtment price with reference to compensation determined by the court does not provide any locus to an allottee to contest the claim for enhanced compensation.-[Para 9](773-F-G; 774-A- B] .. 767 A B c D E F G H 768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I S.C.R. A 1.3 The only other justification in the. impugned judgment which was relied upon by the respondents is lack of sincerity on the part of the State authority for whose benefit the acquisition was made viz. HSIDC, which by itself cannot be a valid ground to permit post-acquisition allottee to be treated as a necessary or B proper authority under Order I Rule 10 CPC to proceedings for · determination of compensation. The view taken in the impugned judgment cannot be sustained on any principle or precedent. [Para 16] [777-F] 1.4 There is l\O consideration of the principle of law and thus, the order dated 15'" July, 2004 without there being contest C on the principle of law could not be treated as a precedent for deciding the legal issue at hand. (Para 17] [777-G-H] D E F G H 1.5 No case was made out for permitting additional evidence on settled principles under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. It is clear that neither the trial court refused to receive the evidence nor it could be said that the evidence sought to be adduced was not available despite the exercise of due diligence nor it could be held necessary to pronounce the judgment. Additional evidence cannot be permitted to fill-in the lacunae or to patch-up the weak points in the case. There was no ground for remand in these circumstances. While remanding the matter in the earlier round, liberty was given to the MSIL to file an application for impleadment or to act as an intervenor which implied that such application was to be accepted. There is no merit in this contention also. It cannot be held that any right was crystalised by the said observation and such prayer had to be considered according to law. [Para 19-21] [778-A-B, E-GI N. Kama/am v. Ayyaswami (2001) 7 SCC 503 : 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 272 - referred to .. 1.6 The impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded to the High Court. (Para 22( (778-G-H] Hindu Kanya Maha Vidyalaya, Jind and anr. v. Municipal Committee, Jind and ors. 1988 (Supp) SCC 719 - relied· OI\. Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead) by legal representatives and ors. v. State of Kar,iataka and anr. 2015 (9) SCR 498 : (2015) 10 sec 469; UP. A11•as SATISH KUMAR GUPTA ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ETC. Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors. 1994 (4) Suppl. SCR 646 : (1995) 2 SCC 326; P. Narayanappa and anr. v. State of Karnatakq a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.