UNION OF INDIA versus SHER SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 1 S.C.R. 326 · Decided: 28-01-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
SHER SINGH AND ORS. 
JANUARY 28, 1993 
[KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Section 18-'Any person interested'-
Scope of-Includes person directly or indirectly interested either in the title to 
the lanJ or in the quantum of compensation. 
Lan~Acquisition by State for the purpose of National Security Guard 
as desired by Union of lndirr-Land owners' reference for enhancement of 
compensation-Application by Union fl.. India for impleadment as respon-
dents-Maintainability of-Held Union of India is entitled to be impleaded 
as respondents. 
The State of Haryana acquired some land in District Gurgaon for 
the benefit of National Security Guard as desired by the Union of India. 
Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded the landowners filed 
reference petitions under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
During the pendency of the reference, an application was moved by the 
Union of India for being impleaded as respondents on the ground that the 
land had been acquired for the purpose of National Security Guard being 
controlled by the Union of India and that any order enhancing the com· 
pensation would adversely affect the Union of India and it would be 
deprived of an opportunity to file an appeal, in case it is not impleaded as 
a party. The Additional District Judge declined to implead the Union of 
India as a party. Union of India filed a revision petition before the High 
Court of Punjab and Haryana which by its order dated 24.5.1989 dismissed 
the same. Against the order of the High Court Union of India preferred 
an appeal in this court. In the meantime, by its order dated 17.1.1990 the 
Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court, 
this Court, 
HELD : 1. The definition of 'a person interested' given in Section 18 
H 
is an inclusive definition and must be liberally construed so as to embrace 
326 
r 
U.0,L v. SHER SINGH 
327 
all persons who may be directly or indirectly interested either in the title 
A 
to the land or in the quantum of compensation. (3388) 
Himalayan Titles and Marbles (P) ltd. v. Francis Victor Countinhq 
(dead) by Lrs. and Ors., (1980) 3 S.C.R. 235; Neelgangabai andAnr. v. State 
of Kamataka and Ors., (1990] 3 S.C.C. 617 and Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti 
v. Ashok Singhal and Ors., (1991) Supp. 2 S.C.C. 419, relied on. 
B 
'!' 
Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahemdabad v. Chandula/ 
Shamaldas Patel and Ors., 1970 (1) S.C.W.R. 183, distinguished. 
Punjab United Pesticides and Chemicals Ltd. v. Puran Singh, S.L.P. 
No. 5389 of 1981 decided on January 11, 1982, referred to. 
c 
Kulbhushan Kumar and Company v. State of Punjab and Anr., A.l.R. 
_ ..... 
1984 P & H 55 (F8), overruled. 
Mis lndo Swiss Time Ltd., Dundahera v. Umrao and Ors., A.I.R. 1981 
D 
P & H 213 overruled (Minority view of SS. Sandbawalia, J. approved) 
Hindustan Sanitary Ware and Industries Ltd. and Anr. v. State of 
Haryana and Ors., A.I.R. 1972 P & H 59, referred to as approved. 
)_ 
2. The Union of India bas been deprived of tiling an appeal against · E 
the order of the Additional District Judge dated 17.U990 as its applica-
lion for impleadment was itself dismissed. Accordingly, the application of 
the Union of India for impleadment is allowed as a result of which it is 
entitled to file an appeal in the High Court against the judgment of the 
Additional District Judge dated 17.1.1990. (3398-C] 
F 
~ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1639 of 
1990. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.5.1989 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No. 124 of 1989. 
G 
"'-
Dr. Gouri Shankar, Vipin Sanghi and C.V. Sobba Rao for the Ap-
pellant. 
Harbans Lal and Sarva Mitter (for M/s. Mitter and Mitter Co.) for 
the Respondents. 
H 
328 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
/ 
KASLIW AL, J. The short controversy raised in the above appeal is 
whether the Union of India through the Deputy Inspector General, Nation-
al Security Guard is a necessary and proper party to be impleaded when 
the land in question w~s acquired by the State of Haryana for the purpose 
of National Security Guard as desired by the Union of India. 
The State of Haryana acquired some land situated in District Gur-
gaon for the purposes of National Security Guard in 1985 as desired by the 
Union oflndia. The land
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.