Shrachi Burdwan Developers Private Limited v. the State of West Bengal & Ors.
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 11.09.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Calcutta in FMA No. 887 of 2019by which the High Court has allowed
the said appeal preferred by the original landowners/claimants by quashing
and setting aside the judgment and order dated 16.02.2017 passed b y
the learned Single Judge and consequently dismissed the Writ Petition
No. 9778(W) of 2012, Shrachi Burdwan Developers Private Limite d
[claiming to be interested party and ‘person interested’as defined under
Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter refer red to as
“Act”)] has preferred the present Civil Appeal No.5856 of 2021 arising
out of SLP (C) No. 29801 of 2019.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 26.02.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Calcutta in C.O. No. 1232 of 2018 and other allied matters by which the
learned Single Judge of the High Court has allowed the said revisional
applications and has quashed and set aside the awards passed by the
927
Reference Court enhancing the compensation, the original landowners
have preferred the present Civil Appeal Nos. 5857-5880 of 2021 arising
out of SLP (C) Nos.9991-10014 of 2020.
3. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under:-
3.1 Burdwan Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as
“BDA”) requisitioned the land in question. The Government issued 12
separate notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Actin the
months of April and May, 2005 stating inter alia that the lands would be
acquired for public purpose for setting up the Satellite T ownship for
Burdwan Town at public expenses. That thereafter, the declaration under
Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published.
3.2 In the month of August, 2005, Paschim Bardhaman Krishi
Kalyan Samity, a group of farmers filed a writ petition before the High
Court challenging the notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act on
the grounds inter alia that the acquisition are not for public purpose and
not on public expenses but on private expenses of Bengal Shrachi Housing
Development Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Benga l Shrachi”).
According to the original claimants – landowners, BDA filed objection
pleading that the entire cost of acquisition is borne by the BDA itself and
the lands were needed for public purpose. The High Court dismissed the
said writ petition holding the acquisition was for public purpose and at
public expenses, entirely to be paid by BDA.
3.3 It appears that after declaration was published under Section
6 of the Act, an unregistered Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) dated
08.03.2006 was executed by the BDA with Bengal Shrachi who wa s
chosen in a bid process amongst some other companies for development
of lands acquired under a public private partnership.
3.4 That thereafter, the Land Acquisition Collector declared award
under Section 12(1) of the Act. The said amount was paid by B DA.
That thereafter on 26.02.2007, the State of West Bengal took over
possession of the lands from the farmers and handed it over to BDA and
BDA handed it over to Bengal Shrachi. In the meantime, at the instance
of the landowners References were made to the Reference Court under
Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court allowed the Refere nces
and enhanced the compensation from Rs.5,80,700/- pe r acre as
determined by the Collector to Rs.35,00,000/- per acre together with
solatium, interest, and other statutory dues thereon.
SHRACHI BURDWAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED v.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
3.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment
and order passed by the Reference Court, at the instance of the BDA,
four appeals are pending before the High Court of judicature at Calcutta.
3.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
passed by the learned Reference Court, the appellant herein S hrachi
Burdwan Developers Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Shrachi
Burdwan”) filed a Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012 before the High
Court of Calcutta in which the following prayers were stated:-
a) A declaration that the petitioners are not liable to pa y any
amount over and above the original cost of acquisition already
paid to the respondent authorities;
b) In the alternative, a declaration that the impugned judgments
and/or orders passed by the Learned Additional District Judge,
Burdwan in the 24 land acquisition cases (being Annexure
“P:29” hereto) and detailed in the letter dated 16 thDecember,
2011 are arbitrary, illegal, null and Void;
c) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue restraining
the respondent authorities from demanding from the petitioners
any amount over and above the original cost of acquisition
already paid to the respondent authorities;
d) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue calling
upon the respondent authorities to forthwith revoke, rescind,
recall, cancel and set aside:-
i. The impugned judgments and/or orders passed by the
Learned Additional District judge, Burdwan in the 24 land
acquisition cases (being Annexure “P29 hereto) and detailed
in the letter dated 16 December, 2011 (being Annexure
°P27° hereto;
ii. The purported decision arrived at the board meeting dated
11th January, 2012 (being Annexure “P30” hereto);
e) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue restraining
the respondent authorities from acting under and from giving
any further and/or any effect to:-
i. The impugned judgments and/or orders passed by the
Learned Additional District Judge, Burdwan in the 24 land
acquisition cases (being Annexure “P29” hereto);
929
ii. The purported decision arrived at the board meeting dated
11thJanuary, 2012 (being Annexure “P30” hereto);
f) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing
the respondents to hear the 24 land acquisition cases (being
Annexure “P29” hereto) afresh after serving notice and granting
hearing to the petitioners in accordance with law;
g) A writ of and/or in the nature of Prohibition do issue prohibiting
the respondents from proceeding with:-
i. The impugned judgments and/or orders passed by the
Learned Additional District Judge, Burdwan in the 24 land
acquisition cases (being Annexure “P29” hereto);
ii. The purported decision arrived at the board meeting dated
11thJanuary, 2012 (being Annexure “P30” hereto);
h) A writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari do issue calli ng
upon the respondents to transmit to this Hon’ble Court all the
records pertaining the impugned judgments and/or order s
passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Burdwan in
the 24 land acquisition cases (being Annexure “P29” hereto)
so that conscionable justice may be done by quashing the same;
i) Rule Nisi in terms of the prayers above;
j) Injunction restraining the respondents from demanding from
the petitioners any amount over and above the original cost of
acquisition already paid to the respondent authorities;
k) Stay of operation of:-
i. The impugned judgments and/or orders passed by the
Learned Additional District Judge, Burdwan in the 24 land
acquisition cases (being Annexure “P29” hereto);
ii. The purported decision arrived at the board meeting dated
11thJanuary, 2012 (being Annexure “P30” hereto);
m)A direction upon the Land Acquisition Collector, Burdwan to
issue notice to the respondent No.27 and 28;
n) Ad interim orders in terms of prayers (j) and (m) above;
o) Such further or other order or orders be made and/ or directions
be given as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper,”
SHRACHI BURDWAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED v.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
3.7 The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the said
writ petition by the judgment and order dated 16.02.2017 and quashed
and set aside the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in
the Reference cases initiated by original respondent Nos. 6, 16, 17 and
25 in the Writ Petition No.9778(W) of 2012. At this stage, it is required
to be noted that the writ petition was confined to only four respondents
referred to herein above. Learned Single Judge held that the petitioner
can be said to be an ‘interested party’ within the defi nition of Section
3(b) of the Act and as the Reference Court passed the ju dgment and
award enhancing the amount of compensation without giving an
opportunity to the appellant – Shrachi Burdwan Developers Private
Limited. While quashing and setting aside the judgment and award passed
by the learned Reference Court, learned Single Judge of the High Court
remanded the case back to the learned Additional Di strict Judge,
Burdwan (Reference Court) for being decided afresh after givin g an
opportunity of hearing to the appellant company.
3.8 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.02.2017, the landowners
preferred appeal before the High Court being FMA No. 887 of 2019 and
by the impugned judgment and order dated 11.09.2019, the Division Bench
of the High Court has allowed the said appeal and has quashed and set
aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge leaving
the original writ petitioners - appellants herein free to pursue whatever
other remedies may be available to them in accordance with law.
3.9 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, ap pellant
herein – Shrachi Burdwan has preferred the present Civil Appeal No.5856
of 2021.
3.10 In the meantime, the landowners preferred the execution
petition before the Reference Court. In the execution petitions, Shrachi
Burdwan preferred the application to implead them as party relying upon
the judgment and order dated 16.02.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.
9778(W) of 2012. The Reference Court – Executing Court dismisse d
the said applications, which were the subject matte r of revision
applications before the High Court being C.O. No. 1232 of 20 18 and
other allied revision applications. At this stage, it is required to be noted
that the Writ Petition No.9778(W) of 2012 was restricted to only four
respondents namely 6, 16, 17 and 25 in the Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of
931
2012. However, the applications were filed in the execution pe titions
with respect to 24 claimants/landowners and 24 revision applic ations
were preferred before the High Court. Before the learned Single Judge,
Shrachi Burdwan relied upon the judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012 by which the
learned Single Judge held that Shrachi Burdwan is a necessar y and
interested party and can be said to be ‘interested pers on’ within the
definition of Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act. Relying upon the
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No. 9778(W) of 2012, which as such was set aside by the Divisi on
Bench of the High Court by its judgment and order dated 11.09.2019
passed in FMA No. 887 of 2019, the learned Single Judge allowed the
said revision applications being C.O. No. 1232 of 2018 and other allied
revision applications and unfortunately has quashed and set asid e the
judgment and award passed by the Reference Court holding that Shrachi
Burdwan – the revisionist can be said to be a “person interested” within
the definition as envisaged in Section 3(b) of the Act. By the impugned
judgment and order, the learned Single Judge of the High Court h as
passed the following order in paragraph 113:-
“113. In view of the aforesaid findings, all the revisional applications
which are taken up for hearing together, are allowed, thereb y
setting aside the orders impugned therein and holding that the
reference awards, enhancing the amount of compensation, were
null and void in the eye of law, since those were passed without
impleading Shrachi, a necessary party due to its direct interest in
the compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of
land, as envisaged in Section 3(b) of the LA Act. However, this
will not prevent the land losers from initiating fresh proceedings
under Section 18 of the LA Act, impleading Shrachi as a party.”
3.11 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated
26.02.2020 passed in C.O. No.1232 of 2018 and other allied revision
applications quashing and setting aside the judgment and award passed
by the Reference Court, the original landowners/claimants have preferred
the present Civil Appeal Nos.5857-5880 of 2021.
4. We have heard Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of Shrachi Burdwan Developers Private Limited in
Civil Appeal No. 5856 of 2021 on maintainability of the writ pet ition
SHRACHI BURDWAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED v.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
before the learned Single Judge challenging the judgment and a ward
passed by the learned Reference Court.
4.1 Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances
of the case, the appellant was justified in invoking the jurisdiction of the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the
judgment and award passed by the Reference Court.
4.2 It is submitted that as the appellant can be said to be a ‘person
interested’ in view of the definition of Section 3(b) of the Act in as much
as the ultimate liability to pay the enhanced compensation would be upon
the appellant and as the appellant was not impleaded as a pa rty in the
Reference under Section 18 of the Act and was not h eard by the
Reference Court before enhancing the amount of compensatio n the
appellant was justified in invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that in the facts
and circumstances of the case, as such the learned Single Judge rightly
entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and rightly exercised the jurisdiction under Article 226 and rightly quashed
and set aside the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court
on the ground that before enhancing the amount of compensation, the
appellant was not heard. It is submitted that as such the learned Single
Judge of the High Court remanded the matter to the Reference Court to
decide the references afresh after giving an opportunity to the appellant.
It is submitted that, therefore, in the facts and circumstan ces of the
case, the Division Bench ought not to have interfered with the or der
passed by the learned Single Judge.
4.3 Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant has relied upon the following decisions of this Court in
support of his submission that in the facts and circumstan ces of the
case, the appellant rightly invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the learned Si ngle Judge
rightly entertained the writ petition under Article 226 cha llenging the
judgment and award passed by the Reference Court and the lea rned
Single Judge rightly set aside the award passed by the Reference Court
in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:-
(a) N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal
Constituency, Namakkal Salem District and Four
Others, AIR 1952 SC 64;
933
(b) State of U.P. Vs. Mohammad Nooh, 1958 SCR 595;
(c) Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks,
Mumbai and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 1;
(d) Harbanslal Sahnia and Anr. Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.
and Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 107;
(e) Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd. Vs. Special
Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Neyvely and Ors., (1995)
1 SCC 221; and
(f) U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi (Dead)
by LRs. And Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 326.
5. Present appeal is opposed by Ms. Kiran Suri, learned se nior
counsel appearing on behalf of the original landowners. It is vehemently
submitted on behalf of the original land owners that in the fac ts and
circumstances of the case the Division Bench of the High C ourt has
rightly held that the writ petition before the learne d Single Judge
challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court
was not maintainable and/or was not required to be entertained,
particularly, in view of the fact that even the four appeal s against the
judgment and award passed by the Reference Court were pending before
the High Court at the instance of BDA.
5.1 It is submitted that as such the appellant company cannot be
said to be the beneficiary of the acquisition under Part II of the Land
Acquisition Act and, therefore, cannot be said to be an ‘interested person’
under Section 3(b), 9, 11, 20(b) read with Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act.
5.2 It is submitted that even the writ petition under Article 226 by
the company was not maintainable to challenge the Reference Court’s
award under Section 26 of the Act. Reliance is placed upon the decision
of this Court in the case of Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead) by
Legal Representatives and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr.,
(2015) 10 SCC 469. It is submitted that as such the appellant company
has no right to file the present appeal under Section 54 of th e Land
Acquisition Act as they are not person aggrieved in this case. It is submitted
that the appellant company cannot be said to be either inte rested or
proper party and has no locus to be heard. It is submitted that the land
has been acquired for public purpose at public expenses for HISDC. It
SHRACHI BURDWAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED v.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
is submitted that the land has been allotted to BDA and th e allottee
company cannot be said to be a person interested under Section 3(b) of
the Act and have no right to be heard. Reliance is placed upon Satish
Kumar Gupta and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (2017) 4
SCC 760 and Hindu Kanya Maha Vidyalaya, Jind and Anr. Vs.
Municipal Committee, Jind and Ors., (1988) Supp. SCC 719.
5.3 It is further submitted by Ms. Suri, learned senior couns el
appearing on behalf of the claimants that the decisions cited on behalf of
the appellant in the cases of Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd.
Vs. Francis Victor Countinho (Dead) by LRs., (1980) 3 SCC 223;
Neelagangabai and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors ., AIR
1990 SC 1321; and Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd. (supra) shall
not be applicable to the facts of the case as all the afore said decisions
relate to acquisition for accompany under Part – VII of the Act and the
respective companies were the beneficiaries. Making aforesaid
submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the Civil Appeal No.5856 of 2021.
5.4 Now, sofaras the Civil Appeal Nos.5857-5880 of 2021 arising
out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned
Single Judge of the High Court dated 26.02.2020 in C.O. No. 1232 of
2018 and other allied revision applications are concerned, it is vehemently
submitted by Ms. Suri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
original landowners- claimants that the impugned common judgment and
order passed by the High Court is absolutely unsustainable and not tenable
at law.
5.5 It is vehemently submitted by Ms. Suri, learned senior counsel
that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge
is just contrary to the decision of the Division Bench dated 11.09.2019 in
FMA No.887 of 2019 arising out of judgment passed by the learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012. It is submitted that
before the Executing Court and before the learned Single Judge, the
Shrachi Burdwan Developers Private Limited- the original revisionist
relied upon the decision of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.
9778(W) of 2012 and claimed to be the person interested under Section
3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act and on that ground sought an
impleadment in the execution petitions.
5.6 It is submitted that despite the fact that the learned Single
Judge was made aware of the decision of the Division Ben ch in FMA
935
No.887 of 2019, by the impugned judgment and order the High Court
has set aside the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court.
It is submitted that as such even the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No. 9778(W) of 2012 remanded the matter to the Reference Court for
fresh decision. However, by the impugned judgment and order, the High
Court has not remanded the Reference to the Reference C ourt and,
however, only has reserved the liberty in favour of the landowner s to
make fresh reference under Section 18 of the Act. It is submitted that if
the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court is
sustained in that case there shall be number of complications including
the limitation period etc. It is submitted that in any case, Shrachi Burdwan,
the appellant herein, cannot be said to be a ‘person interest ed’ under
Section 3(b) of the Act in view of the submissions on behalf of the
landowners recorded hereinabove.
6. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of BDA has supported the submissions made on behalf of the Shr achi
Burdwan, the appellant, however, he is not disputing that the four appeals
preferred by the BDA challenging the judgment and award passe d by
the Reference Court are pending before the High Court.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length.
8. So far as Civil Appeal No.5856 of 2021 is concerned, Shrachi
Burdwan filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Cons titution of
India for the reliefs referred to hereinabove and more particularly,
challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court
enhancing the amount of compensation. The appellant herein, Shrachi
Burdwan was not a party to the Reference proceedings. The l ocus of
the appellant – Shrachi Burdwan has been seriously disputed on behalf
of the landowners/claimants and it is seriously disputed whet her the
appellant - Shrachi Burdwan can be said to be a ‘person inter ested’
within the definition of Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is
also required to be noted that as such out of 24 Reference cases, before
the High Court in Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012, the appellant
restricted the prayer with respect to only four respondents namely 6, 16,
17 and 25 in the writ petition. As observed hereinabove, at the instance
of the BDA four appeals challenging the judgment and award passed by
the Reference Court are pending before the High Court. Therefore, in
the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly when the
locus of the appellant, Shrachi Burdwan to challenge the judgment and
SHRACHI BURDWAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED v.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
award passed by the Reference Court is seriously disputed and whether
the appellant, Shrachi Burdwan can be said to be a ‘person interes ted’
within the definition of Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act and
thereby the appellant can challenge the judgment and award passed by
the Reference Court enhancing the compensation are all disputed questions
of facts and are all contentious issues, we are of the opinion that learned
Single Judge of the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and ought not to
have set aside the judgment and award passed by the Refere nce Court
enhancing the amount of compensation under the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act. The remedy available to the appellant would have been
to prefer appeal before the High Court with application for leave to
appeal.
9. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in view of the
judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court, now, nothing
remains to be done in the appeals preferred by the BDA challenging the
judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, which was set
aside by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, in th e facts and
circumstances of the case, the High Court ought not to have entertained
the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging
the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. The question
is not about maintainability of the writ petition. The question is with respect
to the entertainability of the writ petition and for the reasons stated above,
we are of the firm opinion that the High Court ought not to have
entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference C ourt,
more particularly, when the appellant would have a remedy to file the
appeal under Section 54 with the leave of the Court and if at all the
Appellate Court – High Court grants leave to prefer the appeal
challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court.
10. None of the judgments/decisions relied upon by the learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant on maintainability of
the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, t he
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court IN FMA No.
887 of 2019 is not required to be interfered by this Court. The Division
Bench of the High Court has also reserved liberty in f avour of the
937
appellant to pursue whatever other remedies may be available to them
in accordance with law, which may be including to prefer the a ppeal
before the High Court challenging the judgment and award pa ssed by
the Reference Court provided the leave to appeal is granted by the High
Court – Appellate Court.
12. So far as the Civil Appeal Nos. 5857-5880 of 2021 are
concerned, they arise out of the impugned judgment and order passed
by the learned Single Judge of the High Court quashing and setting aside
the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court passed in 24
References. It is to be noted that the revisions before the High Court
were arising out of the order passed by the Executing Court and though
the Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012 was restricted to o nly four
respondents as observed hereinabove and so observed in the judgment
and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9778(W)
of 2012, by the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge
of the High Court has set aside the judgment and award passe d by the
Reference Court in 24 References.
13. Even otherwise, the impugned judgment and order passed by
the learned Single Judge is not sustainable and it is untenab le at law.
Before the Executing Court and even before the High Court, the appellant
company – Shrachi Burdwan heavily relied upon the judgment and order
passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012 and
prayed to implead them as a party, which as such was set aside by the
Division Bench and even special leave petition against the judgment and
order passed by the Division Bench was pending before thi s Court.
Therefore, once the judgment and order passed by the learned Singl e
Judge in Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012 was set aside by the Division
Bench, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Cou rt
taking a contrary view can be said to be in teeth of the judgm ent and
order passed by the learned Division Bench. The learned Single Judge
of the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order has
not maintained the judicial discipline and has passed the judgment and
order just contrary to the order passed by the Division Be nch. The
order passed by the Division Bench was binding on the learned Single
Judge.
14. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that even whil e
passing the judgment and order in Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012,
the learned Single Judge remanded the matter to the Referenc e Court
SHRACHI BURDWAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED v.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity to Shrachi Burdwan,
the appellant herein (which as such has been set aside by the D ivision
Bench and confirmed by this Court today) and despite the same by the
impugned judgment and order in revision applications, the learned Single
Judge has set aside the judgment and award passed by the Re ference
Court in all the 24 cases and not remanded the matter to the Reference
Court but has observed that it will be open for the original landowners to
initiate fresh proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
impleading Shrachi Burdwan - the appellant as a party. Learned Single
Judge has not appreciated that to initiate fresh proceedings under Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act now would create so many probl ems
including the question of limitation etc. In any case, even such an order
reserving liberty in favour of the land losers to initiate fre sh process
under Section 18 is also just contrary to the decision of the learned Single
Judge in Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012 by which the learned Single
Judge remanded the matter to the Reference Court for fres h decision.
Of course, as observed hereinabove, the order passed by t he learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012 has been set aside by
the Division Bench.
15. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove,
Civil Appeal No. 5856 of 2021 stands dismissed. However, it is observed
that it will be open for the appellant – Shrachi Burdwan De velopers
Private Limited to pursue whatever other remedies may be available to
them in accordance with law, which may be including the filing of appeal
under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, however, subject to the
leave to appeal granted by the High Court for which the appellant has to
file a proper application for leave to appeal and satisfy the High Court
that the appellant company can be said to be a ‘person interested’ under
Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act and that the app ellant has a
locus to prefer appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. It
will be open for the landowners to challenge the locus of the appellant -
Shrachi Burdwan Developers Private Limited, as a ‘person interested’
within the definition of Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act and to
contend that the appellant has no locus to challenge the judgme nt and
award passed by the Reference Court. All the aforesaid ques tions are
kept open to be considered by the High Court as and when any s uch
application is preferred alongwith the appeals. It is made clear that this
Court has not expressed anything on merits in favour of either parties on
939
the aforesaid. With above observations and clarifications Civil Appeal
No. 5856 of 2021 stands dismissed.
16. Now, so far as Civil Appeal Nos. 5857-5880 of 2021 are
concerned, in view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all
these appeals are allowed. Impugned common judgment and order passed
by the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 26.02.2020 passed
in C.O. No. 1232 of 2018 and other allied revision applications are hereby
quashed and set aside and the proceedings before the Executing Court
are restored and the learned Executing Court is directed to proc eed
further with the execution petitions, subject to any stay granted by the
Appellate Court, if any, and of course, subject to the further order that
may be passed by the High Court in the applications for leave to appeal/
the appeals to be preferred by Shrachi Burdwan Developer s Private
Limited, the appellant herein, as observed hereinabove.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order
as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Devika Gujral Appeals disposed of.
SHRACHI BURDWAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED v.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]