UNION OF INDIA Vs. SHER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Stale of Haryana acquired some land situated in District Gurgaon for the purposes of National Security Guard in 1985 as desired by the Union of India. The land owners being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, submitted reference petitions under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, Its 94 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). During the pendency of the reference application before the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, an application was moved by the Union of India for being impleaded in the array of the respondents on the ground that the land had been acquired for the purpose of National Security Guard being controlled by the Union of India. It was submitted that any order enhancing the compensation 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 by his order dated 28.11.1988 dismissed the application filed by the Union of India. It may be noted that some of the land owners had impleaded Union of India as a party, but in 25 cases including the present case the Union of India was not impleaded as a party. The Union of India aggrieved against the order of the Additional District Judge filed a revision before the High Court. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana by its order dated 24.5.1989 dismissed the revision placing reliance upon the Full Bench decision of the same Court in M/s. Kulbhushan Kunar & Company v. State of Punjab & Another [AIR 1984 Punjab & Haryana 55]. This Full Bench decision in turn relied on the decision of the Full Bench of the same Court in M/s. Indo Swiss Time Limited, Dwzdahera v. Umrao and Others [AIR 1981 Punjab & Haryana 213].

(2.) A Division Bench of this Court of two Judges in Himalayan Tiles and Marbles (P) Ltd. v. Francis Victor Coutinno (aead) by Lrs. and Others [(1980) 3 SCR 235] examined the question of 'person interested' under the land acquisition proceedings in detail and categorically held that the appellant Himalayan Tiles and Marbles being a private company for which the land was acquired was undoubtedly 'a person interested' as contemplated by section 18 (1) of the Act. It was held that the definition of 'a person interested' given in section 18 is an inclusive definition and must be liberally construed so as to embrace all persons who may be directly or indirectly interested either in the title to the land or in the quantum of compensation. It was further held that the lands were actually acquired for the purpose of the Company and once the land vested in the · Government after acquisition, it stood transferred to the Company under the agreement entered into between the company and the Government. Thus, it cannot be said that the Company had no claim or title to the land at all. Secondly, since under the agreement the Company had to pay the compensation, it was most certainly interested in seeing that a proper quantum of compensation was fixed so that the Company may not have to pay a very heavy amount of money. This Court categorically held that the view taken by the Orissa High Court or even by the Calcutta High Court that a company, local authority or a person for whose benefit the land is acquired is not an interested person is not correct. In the above case this Court further held that the preponderance of judicial opinion seems to favour the view that the definition o[ person interested must be liberally construed to include a body, local authority, or a company [or whose benefit the land is acquired and who is bound under an agreement to pay the compensation. This view accords with the principles of equity, justice and good conscience. It may be further important to note that this Court in the above case approved the case of Punjab and Haryana High Court in The Hindustan Sanitaryware and Industries Ltd. Balladurgarh and Anr. v. The Stale of Haryana and Ors. [AIR (1972) .Punjab and Haryana 59].AIR 1984 P and H 55, AIR 1981 P and H 213 and (I 97(J) 1 SCWR 183 overruled. (1980) 3 SCR 235 relied on. Appeal allowed.