SHRACHI BURDWAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. on 5 October 2021

923

SHRACHI BURDWAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED

A

v.

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 5856 of 2021)

B

OCTOBER 05, 2021

[M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Notification issued under s.4 foracquiring land for public purpose for setting up the SatelliteTownship for Burdwan Town at public expenses – After thedeclaration was published under s.6, an unregistered MoA wasexecuted by the BDA with Bengal Shrachi who was chosen in a bidprocess amongst some other companies for development of landsacquired under a public private partnership – Land acquisitioncollector declared award – The said amount was paid by BDA –Thereafter, the state government took over possession of the landsfrom the farmers and handed it over to BDA and BDA handed itover to Bengal Shrachi – In the meantime, at the instance of thelandowners, references were successfully made to reference courtwherein compensation was enhanced from Rs.5.8 lacs to Rs.35 lacs– Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgmentand order passed by the Reference Court, at the instance of theBDA, four appeals are pending before the High Court – Feelingaggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed bythe Reference Court, the appellant Shrachi Burdwan filed a WritPetition before the High Court challenging the judgment and awardpassed by the Reference Court enhancing the amount ofcompensation – Maintainability of writ petition – Held: Appellantwas not a party to the Reference proceedings – The locus of theappellant was seriously disputed on behalf of the landowners/claimants and it was seriously disputed whether the appellant canbe said to be a ‘person interested’ within the definition of s.3(b) ofthe LA Act – In the facts and circumstances of the case and moreparticularly when the locus of the appellant to challenge thejudgment and award passed by the Reference Court is seriouslydisputed and whether the appellant can be said to be a ‘personinterested’ within the definition of s.3(b) of the LA Act and therebythe appellant can challenge the judgment and award passed by the CDEFlocus of theG of the appellant to challenge theH923

AReference Court enhancing the compensation are all disputedquestions of facts and are all contentious issues, High Court oughtnot to have entertained the writ petition under Art.226 and oughtnot to have set aside the judgment and award passed by the ReferenceCourt enhancing the amount of compensation under the provisionsof the Land Acquisition Act – The remedy available to the appellantBwould have been to prefer appeal before the High Court withapplication for leave to appeal.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

Conclusion

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: The appellant Shrachi Burdwan was not a party toCthe Reference proceedings. The locus of the appellant – ShrachiBurdwan has been seriously disputed on behalf of the landowners/claimants and it is seriously disputed whether the appellant -Shrachi Burdwan can be said to be a ‘person interested’ withinthe definition of Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act. As suchout of 24 Reference cases, before the High Court in Writ PetitionDNo. 9778(W) of 2012, the appellant restricted the prayer withrespect to only four respondents namely 6, 16, 17 and 25 in thewrit petition. At the instance of the BDA four appeals challengingthe judgment and award passed by the Reference Court arepending before the High Court. Therefore, in the facts andEcircumstances of the case and more particularly when the locusof the appellant, Shrachi Burdwan to challenge the judgment andaward passed by the Reference Court is seriously disputed andwhether the appellant, Shrachi Burdwan can be said to be a‘person interested’ within the definition of Section 3(b) of theLand Acquisition Act and thereby the appellant can challengeFthe judgment and award passed by the Reference Courtenhancing the compensation are all disputed questions of factsand are all contentious issues, we are of the opinion that SingleJudge of the High Court ought not to have entertained the writpetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and oughtGnot to have set aside the judgment and award passed by theReference Court enhancing the amount of compensation underthe provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The remedy availableto the appellant would have been to prefer appeal before the HighCourt with application for leave to appeal. [Para 8][935-E-H; 936-A-C]H

SHRACHI BURDWAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED v.THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

N. P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, NamakkalConstituency, Namakkal Salem District and FourOthers, AIR 1952 SC 64 : [1952] SCR 218; State ofU.P. v. Mohammad Nooh, [1958] SCR 595; WhirlpoolCorporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai andOrs., (1998) 8 SCC 1 : [1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 359;Harbanslal Sahnia and Anr. v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.and Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 107; Neyvely LigniteCorporation Ltd. v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)Neyvely and Ors., (1995) 1 SCC 221 : [1994] 4 Suppl.SCR 567; U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi(Dead) by LRs. And Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 326 : [1994] 4Suppl. SCR 646; Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead)by Legal Representatives and Ors. v. State of Karnatakaand Anr., (2015) 10 SCC 469 : [2015] 9 SCR 498;Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. State of Haryana andOrs. (2017) 4 SCC 760 : [2017] 1 SCR 767; HinduKanya Maha Vidyalaya, Jind and Anr. v. MunicipalCommittee, Jind and Ors., (1988) Suppl. SCC 719;Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. v. Francis VictorCountinho (Dead) by LRs., (1980) 3 SCC 223 : [1980]3 SCR 235; Neelagangabai and Anr. v. State ofKarnataka and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 1321 : [1990] 3SCR 20 - referred to.

A

B

C

D

E

Case Law Reference

H

A[1980] 3 SCR 235referred topara 5.3[1990] 3 SCR 20referred topara 5.3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5856of 2021.

BFrom the Judgment and Order dated 11.09.2019 of the High Courtof Calcutta at Calcutta in FMA No. 887 of 2019.

With

Civil Appeal Nos. 5857-5880 of 2021.Shyam Divan, Basava Prabhu Patil, Ms. Kiran Suri, Ranjit Kumar,CSr. Advs., Arindam Bannerji, Amit Kumar Mishra, Shashank Manish,Ms. Smriti Shah, Ms. Nidhi Sahay, Sudipto Sircar, Rajkumar Gupta, SaradKumar Singhania, Ms. Rashmi Singhania, Kumarjit Banerjee, GauravGupta, Ms. Sanchari Chakroborty, Aakash Khattar, Rajesh Kumar,Gaurav Goel, Suhaan Mukerji, Vishal Prasad, Nikhil Parikshith, AbhishekDManchanda, Sayandeep Pahari, for M/s PLR Chambers and Co.,Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Ms. Srija Chowdhury, Anant, Advs. Forthe appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.E

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.E

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 11.09.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature atCalcutta in FMA No. 887 of 2019by which the High Court has allowedthe said appeal preferred by the original landowners/claimants by quashingand setting aside the judgment and order dated 16.02.2017 passed byFthe learned Single Judge and consequently dismissed the Writ PetitionNo. 9778(W) of 2012, Shrachi Burdwan Developers Private Limited[claiming to be interested party and ‘person interested’as defined underSection 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as“Act”)] has preferred the present Civil Appeal No.5856 of 2021 arisingGout of SLP (C) No. 29801 of 2019.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 26.02.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature atCalcutta in C.O. No. 1232 of 2018 and other allied matters by which thelearned Single Judge of the High Court has allowed the said revisionalHapplications and has quashed and set aside the awards passed by the Reference Court enhancing the compensation, the original landownershave preferred the present Civil Appeal Nos. 5857-5880 of 2021 arisingout 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 12separate notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Actin themonths of April and May, 2005 stating inter alia that the lands would beacquired for public purpose for setting up the Satellite Township forBurdwan Town at public expenses. That thereafter, the declaration underSection 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published.

3.2 In the month of August, 2005, Paschim Bardhaman KrishiKalyan Samity, a group of farmers filed a writ petition before the HighCourt challenging the notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act onthe grounds inter alia that the acquisition are not for public purpose andnot on public expenses but on private expenses of Bengal Shrachi HousingDevelopment Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Bengal Shrachi”).According to the original claimants – landowners, BDA filed objectionpleading that the entire cost of acquisition is borne by the BDA itself andthe lands were needed for public purpose. The High Court dismissed thesaid writ petition holding the acquisition was for public purpose and atpublic expenses, entirely to be paid by BDA.

3.3 It appears that after declaration was published under Section6 of the Act, an unregistered Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) dated08.03.2006 was executed by the BDA with Bengal Shrachi who waschosen in a bid process amongst some other companies for developmentof lands acquired under a public private partnership.

3.4 That thereafter, the Land Acquisition Collector declared awardunder Section 12(1) of the Act. The said amount was paid by BDA.That thereafter on 26.02.2007, the State of West Bengal took overpossession of the lands from the farmers and handed it over to BDA andBDA handed it over to Bengal Shrachi. In the meantime, at the instanceof the landowners References were made to the Reference Court underSection 18 of the Act. The Reference Court allowed the Referencesand enhanced the compensation from Rs.5,80,700/- per acre asdetermined by the Collector to Rs.35,00,000/- per acre together withsolatium, interest, and other statutory dues thereon.

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A3.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgmentand 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 awardpassed by the learned Reference Court, the appellant herein ShrachiBBurdwan Developers Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “ShrachiBurdwan”) filed a Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012 before the HighCourt of Calcutta in which the following prayers were stated:-

a) A declaration that the petitioners are not liable to pay anyamount over and above the original cost of acquisition alreadyCpaid to the respondent authorities;

b) In the alternative, a declaration that the impugned judgmentsand/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[th]December,D2011 are arbitrary, illegal, null and Void;

c) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue restrainingthe respondent authorities from demanding from the petitionersany amount over and above the original cost of acquisitionalready paid to the respondent authorities; Ed) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue callingupon the respondent authorities to forthwith revoke, rescind,recall, cancel and set aside:-

i.The impugned judgments and/or orders passed by theLearned Additional District judge, Burdwan in the 24 landFacquisition cases (being Annexure “P29 hereto) and detailedin the letter dated 16 December, 2011 (being Annexure°P27° hereto; ii. The purported decision arrived at the board meeting dated11[th] January, 2012 (being Annexure “P30” hereto);Ge) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue restrainingthe respondent authorities from acting under and from givingany further and/or any effect to:-

i.The impugned judgments and/or orders passed by theLearned Additional District Judge, Burdwan in the 24 landHacquisition cases (being Annexure “P29” hereto);

A

f) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue directingthe respondents to hear the 24 land acquisition cases (beingAnnexure “P29” hereto) afresh after serving notice and grantinghearing to the petitioners in accordance with law; B

g) A writ of and/or in the nature of Prohibition do issue prohibitingthe respondents from proceeding with:-

i.The impugned judgments and/or orders passed by theLearned Additional District Judge, Burdwan in the 24 landacquisition cases (being Annexure “P29” hereto); C

h) A writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari do issue callingupon the respondents to transmit to this Hon’ble Court all theDrecords pertaining the impugned judgments and/or orderspassed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Burdwan inthe 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; E

j) Injunction restraining the respondents from demanding fromthe petitioners any amount over and above the original cost ofacquisition already paid to the respondent authorities;

k) Stay of operation of:-

F

i.The impugned judgments and/or orders passed by theLearned Additional District Judge, Burdwan in the 24 landacquisition cases (being Annexure “P29” hereto);

G

m) A direction upon the Land Acquisition Collector, Burdwan toissue 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 directionsbe given as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper,”

H

A3.7 The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the saidwrit petition by the judgment and order dated 16.02.2017 and quashedand set aside the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court inthe Reference cases initiated by original respondent Nos. 6, 16, 17 and25 in the Writ Petition No.9778(W) of 2012. At this stage, it is requiredto be noted that the writ petition was confined to only four respondentsBreferred to herein above. Learned Single Judge held that the petitionercan be said to be an ‘interested party’ within the definition of Section3(b) of the Act and as the Reference Court passed the judgment andaward enhancing the amount of compensation without giving anopportunity to the appellant – Shrachi Burdwan Developers PrivateCLimited. While quashing and setting aside the judgment and award passedby the learned Reference Court, learned Single Judge of the High Courtremanded the case back to the learned Additional District Judge,Burdwan (Reference Court) for being decided afresh after giving anopportunity of hearing to the appellant company.

A

D3.8 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and orderpassed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.02.2017, the landownerspreferred appeal before the High Court being FMA No. 887 of 2019 andby the impugned judgment and order dated 11.09.2019, the Division Benchof the High Court has allowed the said appeal and has quashed and setaside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge leavingEthe original writ petitioners - appellants herein free to pursue whateverother remedies may be available to them in accordance with law.

3.9 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, appellantherein – Shrachi Burdwan has preferred the present Civil Appeal No.5856Fof 2021.

3.10 In the meantime, the landowners preferred the executionpetition before the Reference Court. In the execution petitions, ShrachiBurdwan preferred the application to implead them as party relying uponthe judgment and order dated 16.02.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.G9778(W) of 2012. The Reference Court – Executing Court dismissedthe said applications, which were the subject matter of revisionapplications before the High Court being C.O. No. 1232 of 2018 andother allied revision applications. At this stage, it is required to be notedthat the Writ Petition No.9778(W) of 2012 was restricted to only fourHrespondents namely 6, 16, 17 and 25 in the Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of

2012. However, the applications were filed in the execution petitionswith respect to 24 claimants/landowners and 24 revision applicationswere preferred before the High Court. Before the learned Single Judge,Shrachi Burdwan relied upon the judgment and order passed by thelearned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012 by which thelearned Single Judge held that Shrachi Burdwan is a necessary andinterested party and can be said to be ‘interested person’ within thedefinition of Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act. Relying upon thejudgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ PetitionNo. 9778(W) of 2012, which as such was set aside by the DivisionBench of the High Court by its judgment and order dated 11.09.2019passed in FMA No. 887 of 2019, the learned Single Judge allowed thesaid revision applications being C.O. No. 1232 of 2018 and other alliedrevision applications and unfortunately has quashed and set aside thejudgment and award passed by the Reference Court holding that ShrachiBurdwan – the revisionist can be said to be a “person interested” withinthe definition as envisaged in Section 3(b) of the Act. By the impugnedjudgment and order, the learned Single Judge of the High Court haspassed the following order in paragraph 113:- “113. In view of the aforesaid findings, all the revisional applicationswhich are taken up for hearing together, are allowed, therebysetting aside the orders impugned therein and holding that thereference awards, enhancing the amount of compensation, werenull and void in the eye of law, since those were passed withoutimpleading Shrachi, a necessary party due to its direct interest inthe compensation to be made on account of the acquisition ofland, as envisaged in Section 3(b)of the LA Act. However, thiswill not prevent the land losers from initiating fresh proceedingsunder Section 18of the LA Act, impleading Shrachi as a party.”

3.11 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated26.02.2020 passed in C.O. No.1232 of 2018 and other allied revisionapplications quashing and setting aside the judgment and award passedby the Reference Court, the original landowners/claimants have preferredthe present Civil Appeal Nos.5857-5880 of 2021.

4. We have heard Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counselappearing on behalf of Shrachi Burdwan Developers Private Limited inCivil Appeal No. 5856 of 2021 on maintainability of the writ petition AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Abefore the learned Single Judge challenging the judgment and awardpassed by the learned Reference Court.

4.1 Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing for theappellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the appellant was justified in invoking the jurisdiction of theBHigh Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging thejudgment and award passed by the Reference Court.

4.2 It is submitted that as the appellant can be said to be a ‘personinterested’ in view of the definition of Section 3(b) of the Act in as muchas the ultimate liability to pay the enhanced compensation would be uponCthe appellant and as the appellant was not impleaded as a party in theReference under Section 18 of the Act and was not heard by theReference Court before enhancing the amount of compensation theappellant was justified in invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that in the factsand circumstances of the case, as such the learned Single Judge rightlyDentertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaand rightly exercised the jurisdiction under Article 226 and rightly quashedand set aside the judgment and award passed by the Reference Courton the ground that before enhancing the amount of compensation, theappellant was not heard. It is submitted that as such the learned SingleEJudge of the High Court remanded the matter to the Reference Court todecide the references afresh after giving an opportunity to the appellant.It is submitted that, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Division Bench ought not to have interfered with the orderpassed by the learned Single Judge.

F4.3 Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalfof the appellant has relied upon the following decisions of this Court insupport of his submission that in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the appellant rightly invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India and the learned Single Judgerightly entertained the writ petition under Article 226 challenging theGjudgment and award passed by the Reference Court and the learnedSingle Judge rightly set aside the award passed by the Reference Courtin exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:- (a)N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, NamakkalConstituency, Namakkal Salem District and FourHOthers, AIR 1952 SC 64; (b)State of U.P. Vs. Mohammad Nooh, 1958 SCR 595;A

(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; B

(e) Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd. Vs. SpecialTahsildar (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.

C

5. Present appeal is opposed by Ms. Kiran Suri, learned seniorcounsel appearing on behalf of the original landowners. It is vehementlysubmitted on behalf of the original land owners that in the facts andcircumstances of the case the Division Bench of the High Court hasrightly held that the writ petition before the learned Single Judgechallenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference Courtwas not maintainable and/or was not required to be entertained,particularly, in view of the fact that even the four appeals against thejudgment and award passed by the Reference Court were pending beforethe High Court at the instance of BDA.

D

E

5.1 It is submitted that as such the appellant company cannot besaid to be the beneficiary of the acquisition under Part II of the LandAcquisition 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 LandAcquisition Act.

F

5.2 It is submitted that even the writ petition under Article 226 bythe company was not maintainable to challenge the Reference Court’saward under Section 26 of the Act. Reliance is placed upon the decisionof this Court in the case of Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead) byLegal Representatives and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr.,(2015) 10 SCC 469. It is submitted that as such the appellant companyhas no right to file the present appeal under Section 54 of the LandAcquisition Act as they are not person aggrieved in this case. It is submittedthat the appellant company cannot be said to be either interested orproper party and has no locus to be heard. It is submitted that the landhas been acquired for public purpose at public expenses for HISDC. It G

H

Ais submitted that the land has been allotted to BDA and the allotteecompany cannot be said to be a person interested under Section 3(b) ofthe Act and have no right to be heard. Reliance is placed upon SatishKumar Gupta and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (2017) 4SCC 760 and Hindu Kanya Maha Vidyalaya, Jind and Anr. Vs.Municipal Committee, Jind and Ors., (1988) Supp. SCC 719.B

5.3 It is further submitted by Ms. Suri, learned senior counselappearing on behalf of the claimants that the decisions cited on behalf ofthe 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., AIRC1990 SC 1321; and Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd. (supra) shallnot be applicable to the facts of the case as all the aforesaid decisionsrelate to acquisition for accompany under Part – VII of the Act and therespective companies were the beneficiaries. Making aforesaidsubmissions, it is prayed to dismiss the Civil Appeal No.5856 of 2021.D

5.4 Now, sofaras the Civil Appeal Nos.5857-5880 of 2021 arisingout of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learnedSingle Judge of the High Court dated 26.02.2020 in C.O. No. 1232 of2018 and other allied revision applications are concerned, it is vehementlysubmitted by Ms. Suri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of theEoriginal landowners- claimants that the impugned common judgment andorder passed by the High Court is absolutely unsustainable and not tenableat law.

5.5 It is vehemently submitted by Ms. Suri, learned senior counselthat the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single JudgeFis just contrary to the decision of the Division Bench dated 11.09.2019 inFMA No.887 of 2019 arising out of judgment passed by the learnedSingle Judge in Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012. It is submitted thatbefore the Executing Court and before the learned Single Judge, theShrachi Burdwan Developers Private Limited- the original revisionistrelied upon the decision of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.G9778(W) of 2012 and claimed to be the person interested under Section3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act and on that ground sought animpleadment in the execution petitions.

5.6 It is submitted that despite the fact that the learned SingleJudge was made aware of the decision of the Division Bench in FMAH

No.887 of 2019, by the impugned judgment and order the High Courthas set aside the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court.It is submitted that as such even the learned Single Judge in Writ PetitionNo. 9778(W) of 2012 remanded the matter to the Reference Court forfresh decision. However, by the impugned judgment and order, the HighCourt has not remanded the Reference to the Reference Court and,however, only has reserved the liberty in favour of the landowners tomake fresh reference under Section 18 of the Act. It is submitted that ifthe impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court issustained in that case there shall be number of complications includingthe limitation period etc. It is submitted that in any case, Shrachi Burdwan,the appellant herein, cannot be said to be a ‘person interested’ underSection 3(b) of the Act in view of the submissions on behalf of thelandowners recorded hereinabove.

6. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalfof BDA has supported the submissions made on behalf of the ShrachiBurdwan, the appellant, however, he is not disputing that the four appealspreferred by the BDA challenging the judgment and award passed bythe 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, ShrachiBurdwan filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia for the reliefs referred to hereinabove and more particularly,challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference Courtenhancing the amount of compensation. The appellant herein, ShrachiBurdwan was not a party to the Reference proceedings. The locus ofthe appellant – Shrachi Burdwan has been seriously disputed on behalfof the landowners/claimants and it is seriously disputed whether theappellant - Shrachi Burdwan can be said to be a ‘person interested’within the definition of Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act. It isalso required to be noted that as such out of 24 Reference cases, beforethe High Court in Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012, the appellantrestricted the prayer with respect to only four respondents namely 6, 16,17 and 25 in the writ petition. As observed hereinabove, at the instanceof the BDA four appeals challenging the judgment and award passed bythe Reference Court are pending before the High Court. Therefore, inthe facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly when thelocus of the appellant, Shrachi Burdwan to challenge the judgment and AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aaward passed by the Reference Court is seriously disputed and whetherthe appellant, Shrachi Burdwan can be said to be a ‘person interested’within the definition of Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act andthereby the appellant can challenge the judgment and award passed bythe Reference Court enhancing the compensation are all disputed questionsof facts and are all contentious issues, we are of the opinion that learnedBSingle Judge of the High Court ought not to have entertained the writpetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and ought not tohave set aside the judgment and award passed by the Reference Courtenhancing the amount of compensation under the provisions of the LandAcquisition Act. The remedy available to the appellant would have beenCto prefer appeal before the High Court with application for leave toappeal.

9. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in view of thejudgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court, now, nothingremains to be done in the appeals preferred by the BDA challenging theDjudgment and award passed by the Reference Court, which was setaside by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, in the facts andcircumstances of the case, the High Court ought not to have entertainedthe writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challengingthe judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. The questionis not about maintainability of the writ petition. The question is with respectEto 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 haveentertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiachallenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court,more particularly, when the appellant would have a remedy to file theFappeal under Section 54 with the leave of the Court and if at all theAppellate Court – High Court grants leave to prefer the appealchallenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court.

10. None of the judgments/decisions relied upon by the learnedsenior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant on maintainability ofGthe writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall beapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.

11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, theimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court IN FMA No.887 of 2019 is not required to be interfered by this Court. The DivisionHBench of the High Court has also reserved liberty in favour of the appellant to pursue whatever other remedies may be available to themin accordance with law, which may be including to prefer the appealbefore the High Court challenging the judgment and award passed bythe Reference Court provided the leave to appeal is granted by the HighCourt – Appellate Court.

12. So far as the Civil Appeal Nos. 5857-5880 of 2021 areconcerned, they arise out of the impugned judgment and order passedby the learned Single Judge of the High Court quashing and setting asidethe judgment and award passed by the Reference Court passed in 24References. It is to be noted that the revisions before the High Courtwere arising out of the order passed by the Executing Court and thoughthe Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012 was restricted to only fourrespondents as observed hereinabove and so observed in the judgmentand order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9778(W)of 2012, by the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judgeof the High Court has set aside the judgment and award passed by theReference Court in 24 References.

13. Even otherwise, the impugned judgment and order passed bythe learned Single Judge is not sustainable and it is untenable at law.Before the Executing Court and even before the High Court, the appellantcompany – Shrachi Burdwan heavily relied upon the judgment and orderpassed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012 andprayed to implead them as a party, which as such was set aside by theDivision Bench and even special leave petition against the judgment andorder passed by the Division Bench was pending before this Court.Therefore, once the judgment and order passed by the learned SingleJudge in Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012 was set aside by the DivisionBench, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Courttaking a contrary view can be said to be in teeth of the judgment andorder passed by the learned Division Bench. The learned Single Judgeof the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order hasnot maintained the judicial discipline and has passed the judgment andorder just contrary to the order passed by the Division Bench. Theorder passed by the Division Bench was binding on the learned SingleJudge.

14. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that even whilepassing the judgment and order in Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012,the learned Single Judge remanded the matter to the Reference Court A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Afor fresh consideration after giving an opportunity to Shrachi Burdwan,the appellant herein (which as such has been set aside by the DivisionBench and confirmed by this Court today) and despite the same by theimpugned judgment and order in revision applications, the learned SingleJudge has set aside the judgment and award passed by the ReferenceCourt in all the 24 cases and not remanded the matter to the ReferenceBCourt but has observed that it will be open for the original landowners toinitiate fresh proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,impleading Shrachi Burdwan - the appellant as a party. Learned SingleJudge has not appreciated that to initiate fresh proceedings under Section18 of the Land Acquisition Act now would create so many problemsCincluding the question of limitation etc. In any case, even such an orderreserving liberty in favour of the land losers to initiate fresh processunder Section 18 is also just contrary to the decision of the learned SingleJudge in Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012 by which the learned SingleJudge remanded the matter to the Reference Court for fresh decision.Of course, as observed hereinabove, the order passed by the learnedDSingle Judge in Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012 has been set aside bythe 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 observedthat it will be open for the appellant – Shrachi Burdwan DevelopersEPrivate Limited to pursue whatever other remedies may be available tothem in accordance with law, which may be including the filing of appealunder Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, however, subject to theleave to appeal granted by the High Court for which the appellant has tofile a proper application for leave to appeal and satisfy the High CourtFthat the appellant company can be said to be a ‘person interested’ underSection 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act and that the appellant has alocus to prefer appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. Itwill 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 toGcontend that the appellant has no locus to challenge the judgment andaward passed by the Reference Court. All the aforesaid questions arekept open to be considered by the High Court as and when any suchapplication is preferred alongwith the appeals. It is made clear that thisCourt has not expressed anything on merits in favour of either parties on H

the aforesaid. With above observations and clarifications Civil AppealNo. 5856 of 2021 stands dismissed.

16. Now, so far as Civil Appeal Nos. 5857-5880 of 2021 areconcerned, in view of the above and for the reasons stated above, allthese appeals are allowed. Impugned common judgment and order passedby the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 26.02.2020 passedin C.O. No. 1232 of 2018 and other allied revision applications are herebyquashed and set aside and the proceedings before the Executing Courtare restored and the learned Executing Court is directed to proceedfurther with the execution petitions, subject to any stay granted by theAppellate Court, if any, and of course, subject to the further order thatmay be passed by the High Court in the applications for leave to appeal/the appeals to be preferred by Shrachi Burdwan Developers PrivateLimited, the appellant herein, as observed hereinabove.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orderas to costs.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Devika Gujral

Appeals disposed of.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H