SHRACHI BURDWAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 13 S.C.R. 923 · Decided: 05-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
923
[2021] 13 S.C.R.923
923
SHRACHI BURDWAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
v.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5856 of 2021)
OCTOBER 05, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Notification issued under s.4 for
acquiring land for public purpose for setting up the Satellite
Township for Burdwan Town at public expenses – After the
declaration was published under s.6, an unregistered MoA was
executed by the BDA with Bengal Shrachi who was chosen in a bid
process amongst some other companies for development of lands
acquired under a public private partnership – Land acquisition
collector declared award – The said amount was paid by BDA –
Thereafter, the state government took over possession of the lands
from the farmers and handed it over to BDA and BDA handed it
over to Bengal Shrachi – In the meantime, at the instance of the
landowners, references were successfully made to reference court
wherein compensation was enhanced from Rs.5.8 lacs to Rs.35 lacs
– Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment
and order passed by the Reference Court, at the instance of the
BDA, four appeals are pending before the High Court – Feeling
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by
the Reference Court, the appellant Shrachi Burdwan filed a Writ
Petition before the High Court challenging the judgment and award
passed by the Reference Court enhancing the amount of
compensation – Maintainability of writ petition – Held:  Appellant
was not a party to the Reference proceedings – The locus of the
appellant was seriously disputed on behalf of the landowners/
claimants and it was seriously disputed whether the appellant can
be said to be a ‘person interested’ within the definition of s.3(b) of
the LA Act – In the facts and circumstances of the case and more
particularly when the locus of the appellant to challenge the
judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is seriously
disputed and whether the appellant can be said to be a ‘person
interested’ within the definition of s.3(b) of the LA Act and thereby
the appellant can challenge the judgment and award passed by the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
924
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 13 S.C.R.
Reference Court enhancing the compensation are all disputed
questions of facts and are all contentious issues, High Court ought
not to have entertained the writ petition under Art.226 and ought
not to have set aside the judgment and award passed by the Reference
Court enhancing the amount of compensation under the provisions
of the Land Acquisition Act – The remedy available to the appellant
would have been to prefer appeal before the High Court with
application for leave to appeal.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: The appellant Shrachi Burdwan was not a party to
the Reference proceedings. The locus of the appellant – Shrachi
Burdwan has been seriously disputed on behalf of the landowners/
claimants and it is seriously disputed whether the appellant -
Shrachi Burdwan can be said to be a ‘person interested’ within
the definition of Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act. As such
out of 24 Reference cases, before the High Court in Writ Petition
No. 9778(W) of 2012, the appellant restricted the prayer with
respect to only four respondents namely 6, 16, 17 and 25 in the
writ petition. At the instance of the BDA four appeals challenging
the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court are
pending before the High Court. Therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the case and more particularly when the locus
of the appellant, Shrachi Burdwan to challenge the judgment and
award passed by the Reference Court is seriously disputed and
whether the appellant, Shrachi Burdwan can be said to be a
‘person interested’ within the definition of Section 3(b) of the
Land Acquisition Act and thereby the appellant can challenge
the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court
enhancing the compensation are all disputed questions of facts
and are all contentious issues, we are of the opinion that Single
Judge of the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and ought
not to have set aside the judgment and award passed by the
Reference Court enhancing the amount of compensation under
the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.  The remedy available
to the appellant would have been to prefer appeal before the High
Court with application for leave to appeal. [Para 8]

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.