Shrachi Burdwan Developers Private Limited vs The State of West Bengal

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5856 OF 2021

Shrachi Burdwan Developers Private Limited …Appellant(s)

Versus

The State of West Bengal & Ors. …Respondent(s)

With

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5857-5880 OF 2021

Arifa Khatun & Etc. Etc. …Appellant(s)

Versus

Burdwan Development Authority & Anr. Etc. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

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 Signature Not Verified

Calcutta in FMA No. 887 of 2019by which the High Court has allowed Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2021.10.05 16:49:56 IST Reason:

the said appeal preferred by the original landowners/claimants by

1 quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 16.02.2017

passed by the learned Single Judge and consequently dismissed the

Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012, Shrachi Burdwan Developers Private

Limited [claiming to be interested party and ‘person interested’as defined

under Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred 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

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 2 public purpose for setting up the Satellite Township 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 “Bengal 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 was

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 BDA. 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 3 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 References and

enhanced the compensation from Rs.5,80,700/- per acre as determined

by the Collector to Rs.35,00,000/- per acre together with solatium,

interest, and other statutory dues thereon.

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 Shrachi

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 pay 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;

4 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);

ii. The purported decision arrived at the board meeting dated 11thJanuary, 2012 (being Annexure "P30" hereto);

5 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 calling upon the respondents to transmit to this Hon'ble Court all the records pertaining the impugned judgments and/or orders 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;

6

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,”

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 definition of Section 3(b)

of the Act and as the Reference Court passed the judgment and award

enhancing the amount of compensation without giving an opportunity to

7 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 District Judge,

Burdwan (Reference Court) for being decided afresh after giving 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, appellant

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 8 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 dismissed the

said applications, which were the subject matter of revision applications

before the High Court being C.O. No. 1232 of 2018 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 2012.

However, the applications were filed in the execution petitions with

respect to 24 claimants/landowners and 24 revision applications 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 necessary and

interested party and can be said to be ‘interested person’ 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 Division

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 aside the

judgment and award passed by the Reference Court holding that 9 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 has 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, thereby 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 petition

before the learned Single Judge challenging the judgment and award

passed by the learned Reference Court.

10 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 party in

the Reference under Section 18 of the Act and was not heard by the

Reference Court before enhancing the amount of compensation 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 11 opportunity to the appellant. It is submitted that, therefore, in the facts

and circumstances of the case, the Division Bench ought not to have

interfered with the order 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 circumstances of the

case, the appellant rightly invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the learned Single

Judge rightly entertained the writ petition under Article 226 challenging

the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court and the learned

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;

(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.

12

5. Present appeal is opposed by Ms. Kiran Suri, learned senior

counsel appearing on behalf of the original landowners. It is vehemently

submitted on behalf of the original land owners that in the facts and

circumstances of the case the Division Bench of the High Court has

rightly held that the writ petition before the learned 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 appeals 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 13 has no right to file the present appeal under Section 54 of the 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

interested 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 is submitted that the land has been allotted to BDA and

the 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 counsel

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 aforesaid 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.

14 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 Bench in FMA No.887 of 15 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 Court and, however, only has

reserved the liberty in favour of the landowners 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 interested’ 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 Shrachi

Burdwan, the appellant, however, he is not disputing that the four

appeals preferred by the BDA challenging the judgment and award

passed by the Reference Court are pending before the High Court.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length.

16

8. So far as Civil Appeal No.5856 of 2021 is concerned, Shrachi

Burdwan filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution 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 locus of the appellant –

Shrachi Burdwan 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’ 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

award passed by the Reference Court is seriously disputed and whether

the appellant, Shrachi Burdwan can be said to be a ‘person interested’

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 17 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

Reference 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 the 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

Court, more particularly, when the appellant would have a remedy to file 18 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, the

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 favour of the

appellant to pursue whatever other remedies may be available to them in

accordance with law, which may be including to prefer the appeal before

the High Court challenging the judgment and award passed 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 19 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 only 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

passed 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 untenable 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 this Court.

Therefore, once the judgment and order passed by the learned Single

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 Court

taking a contrary view can be said to be in teeth of the judgment and

order passed by the learned Division Bench. The learned Single Judge

of the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order has 20 not maintained the judicial discipline and has passed the judgment and

order just contrary to the order passed by the Division Bench. 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 while passing

the judgment and order in Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012, the learned

Single Judge remanded the matter to the Reference Court for fresh

consideration after giving an opportunity to Shrachi Burdwan, the

appellant herein (which as such has been set aside by the Division

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

Reference 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 problems including the question of limitation etc. In any

case, even such an order reserving liberty in favour of the land losers to

initiate fresh 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 21 Reference Court for fresh decision. Of course, as observed

hereinabove, the order passed by the 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 Developers 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 appellant 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 judgment and award passed

by the Reference Court. All the aforesaid questions are kept open to be

considered by the High Court as and when any such 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 the aforesaid. 22 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 proceed 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

Developers 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.

………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J. OCTOBER 05, 2021. [A.S. BOPANNA]

23