CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD MADRAS Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER TIRUNELVELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the writ miscellaneous petitions came up before this court for hearing, it was considered having regard to the nature of the relief sought for and the stage of the proceedings, that the main writ petitions themselves can be taken up for final hearing. Hence, the writ petitions themselves have been taken up for hearing. Since similar and identical issues are involved in all these writ petitions, they are dealt with together.

(2.) THE petitioner in all these writ petitions is the tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board for whose benefit the lands in question covered by the impugned proceedings came to be acquired by the State government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. We are concerned with Award No. 4 of 1987 said to have been passed on 20. 1. 1988 by the first respondent. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the respective owners and persons interested who are arrayed as respondents in addition to the authorities of the State Government, have sought for reference for enhanced compensation to the competent civil court. THE reference under sec. 18 appears to have been made to the second respondent- Sub-Court, tirunelveli and entertained as L. A. O. P. Nos. 43. 46 and 47 of 1988 which are the subject matter of W. P. Nos. 1078, 1079 and 1079 of 1994 respectively. THE second respondent- court by its judgment and decree dated 19. 1. 1989 appears to have enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer by eighteen times for the purpose of deciding the issues raised in these writ petitions, the details of the actual quantum awarded either by the Land Acquisition Officer or by the Sub-Court have no relevance and. therefore, are not referred to. THEre is no controversy over the fact that subsequent to the judgment and decree of the second respondent- Court, the State has filed appeals in A. S. Nos. 657 to 659 of 1989 and these appeals are said to be pending on the file of this Court as on date.

(3.) WHATEVER may be the earlier decision on the subject with of a Full Bench of this Court the decision reported in Neyveli Lignite corporation Limited v. P. R. Rangaswamy, A. l. R. 1990 Mad. 160, the position become well settled in law, that the beneficiaries for whose benefit the lands were acquired by the Government are not entitled to be treated as parties to the Land Acquisition Proceedings and further appeals arising out of the same excepting to the limited right provided under Sec. 50 (2) of the Land Acquisition act. It was also held by the learned Judges of the Full Bench therein that the beneficiaries on whose behalf the lands were acquired are not entitled to be added as parties in the land acquisition compensation proceedings and, therefore, there was no question of issuing notice to them and that their right to challenge the awards in any manner is also curtailed.