BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) All these appeals arise from judgment of the Patna High court dated 2/7/1993 in CWJC No. 5986 of 1993 and other matters in which it was held at the writ petitions are not maintainable. The question that arises in theseappeals is whether the appellant-Board is a person interested within the meaning Section 3 (b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the 'act'). section 3 (b) reads thus :

(3.) The State government by its notification dated 8/4/1981 published under State Gazette, exercised the power under Section 4 (1 of the Act, acquired land in Village Ambari for a public purpose, namely, for construction 33/11 V Mohania Sub-station and staff quarters. A declaration to that effect was also published in the State Gazette on 17/5/1984 reiterating that the aforestated lands required for the above public purpose. Thus, it is clear that the public purposes envisaged was for construction of 33/11 KV Mohania Sub-station and staff quarters on public expenditure. The question therefore is whether the appellant-Board is a person interested. A reading of the definition Section 3 (b) ad with Section 19 (l) (b) and the particulars to be referred to the names of the persons who were interested in such land and Section 20 namely of persons interest in the objection, except such (if any) of them as have consented without protest to receive payment of the compensation awarded, and Section 50 (2 of Act namely "that in any proceedings held before a Collector or a court in cases, the local authority or the Company concerned may appear and duce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation" would clearly indicate that appellant-Board is a person interested in adducing evidence to determine the market value of the acquired land. This court in malayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. v. Francis Victor Coutinho. while considering the scope of the definition of 'person interested' held that the expression must liberally be construed so as to include local authority or a company for whose benefit land was acquired or compensated. Such a person is interested both in the title to the property as also in the compensation paid to it. therefore, both these factors concern the future course of action and if decided against him seriously prejudice his rights. In Neelagangahai v. State of karnataka, the same view was reiterated and writ petition was held maintainable.