NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LTD Vs. RANGASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions and the Letters Patent Appeals are coming before us on a reference made by one of us, namely, Venkataswami, J., in the batch of writ petitions Nos. 9138 of 1986 etc. filed by the Neyveli Lignite Corporation ltd., as the learned Judge felt that the judgment rendered by a Bench of this Court consisting of S. Natarajan, J., as he then was and Singaravelu, J., in Indian Rare Earths Limited v. Special Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, Padmanabhapuram Thukkalai, Kanyakumari District reported in 1986 WritLR 146 requires reconsideration in view of the later decision of the Supreme Court in Santosh Kumar v. Central Warehousing Corporation reported in 1986 AIR(SC) 1164, 1986 CrLR(SC) 220, 1986 (1) CCC 990, 1986 (1) Scale 1265, 1986 (2) SCC 343, 1986 (1) SCR 603, 1986 (2) UJ 56, 1986 CRLR 220 . As the same point is involved in the other writ petitions and Letters Patent Appeals, they have also been heard along with the said writ petitions.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in W. P. No.9138 of 1986 batch on behalf of the Neyveli Lignite Corporation ltd., the following contentions have been raised. The Neyveli Lignite Corporation ltd., which shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'Corporation' is a Government of INdia enterprise incorporated under the INdian Companies Act, 1956. It was formed in 1956 for the industrial and commercial exploitation of the lignite deposits in certain areas of South Arcot District, Tamil Nadu in open cast mines and to utilise the same for generating electricity in Thermal Power Stations. Lands were originally acquired for the Mine, the Thermal Power Station, the Ancillary Factories and Township at the request of the Corporation. For further expansion of the Mines and Power Stations, the Corporation requested the Government of Tamil Nadu to acquire about 5,200 acres of land from the adjoining villages of Periakurichi, Vadakkuvellur, Veppankurichi, Umangalam, Uthangal, Ammeri and Koonankurichi under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer, after following the formalities required under the Act, acquired lands from about 3,000 landowners and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5 crores. The landowners, after receiving the compensation awarded by the second respondent, applied for reference under S.18 of the Act to the third respondent on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was grossly inadequate considering the potential value of the land, the sub-soil, minerals available, the special adaptability of those lands acquired and other special circumstances stated in their claims. Out of about 2,100 references made at the instance of the landowners, 84 references were finalised and judgments were rendered from August 1984 to July 1985 enhancing the compensation substantially. The enhancement of compensation awarded by the third respondent is 10 to 20 times the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and the total enhanced compensation comes to about Rs. 2 crores in the said 84 cases alone. Aggrieved by the unexpected and phenomenal enhancement of compensation, the corporation requested the Government to prefer appeals before this Court and accordingly number of appeals have been filed which are pending before this Court. Pending disposal of the said appeals, the Corporation moved for stay of the orders of enhancement. However, the Corporation was not successful in getting orders of stay and instead a learned single Judge of this Court directed them to deposit the entire compensation amount with liberty to the landowners to withdraw 50% of the amount without security and the balance with security and the same was confirmed by a Division Bench on appeal. Meanwhile, a Division Bench of this Court in INdian Rare Earths Limited v. Special Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Thukkalai, Kanyakumari District reported in 1986 WritLR 146, which shall hereinafter be referred to as the INdian Rare Earths case, held that the awards passed by the Civil Court under the Land Acquisition Act are liable to be quashed inasmuch as those awards were passed without giving notice as contemplated under S.20(b) of the Act to the entity on whose behalf the land was acquired. Taking advantage of the said decisions, the present writ petitions have been filed by the Corporation.

(3.) IN another batch of appeals in A. S. Nos. 1134 to 1136 of 1986 filed by the Land Acquisition Officer against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cuddalore, the petitioner-Corporation filed C. M. P. Nos. 5079, 5081 and 5083 of 1988 for impleading it as a respondent in the said appeals. When the matters came up before Srinivasan, J., he has again considered the various decisions cited before him in detail and disagreed with Shanmukham, J., and came to the conclusion that the petitioner-Corporation is not a necessary party or a proper party to the appeals. The learned Judge mainly relied on the decision of a Bench of this Court in Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Devastanam and Charities v. Sri-La-Sri Ambalavana Pandara Sannadhi, 93 MadLW 623 : 1981 AIR(Mad) 42 ), and distinguished the decision of the Supreme Court and the decision of the Bench of this Court in INdian Rare Earths case, 1986 WritLR 146. The learned Judge held that the Corporation is not entitled to be impleaded as a party even under O. 1, R. 10, C.P.C. Against the said orders, the appeals in L. P. A. Nos. 114 to 116 of 1988 have been filed.