2010 (2) TMI 1304 - HC - Indian Laws

Landowners' petition for additional benefits in land acquisition case dismissed due to delay and acquiescence

The petitioners, landowners in a land acquisition case, sought benefits similar to those who settled through mediation before the award under the Land ... Consent/mediation settlement not binding on non-parties - award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - acquiescence and delay - limitation for reference under Section 18 and Section 28-A of the Act - Order 41 Rule 33 CPC not available to non-partiesConsent/mediation settlement not binding on non-parties - award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The entitlement of the petitioners to the benefits of the mediation-assisted settlement reached between other land-owners and the Company - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the mediation-assisted settlement and the subsequent order of the Supreme Court applied only to the specific land-owners who had challenged the acquisition at the stage of Section 4/6 notifications and had pursued SLP(C) Nos. 1192, 1193 and 1194 of 2009. The Supreme Court's directions and the consent settlement were confined to those petitioners and were not expressed to extend to land-owners who had accepted the award under Section 11 or who were not party to the earlier proceedings. The present petitioners were neither parties to the earlier writ petitions nor to the SLPs that were kept for mediation; they had accepted the award under Section 11 and had not sought reference under Section 18. In that factual and legal matrix, the Court declined to extend the benefit of that settlement to the petitioners, observing that it would be inappropriate to do what the Supreme Court had not considered necessary or proper to do.Petitioners are not entitled to the benefits of the mediation-assisted settlement and the related Supreme Court order because they were not parties to those proceedings and had accepted the Section 11 award.Acquiescence and delay - limitation for reference under Section 18 and Section 28-A of the Act - Whether the petitioners' claims are barred by delay, acquiescence and limitation - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the petitioners had accepted the award under Section 11 without demur and had not invoked reference proceedings under Section 18 within the statutory period. The petitioners approached the High Court belatedly, about three years after earlier related writ petitions were filed, and after the limitation period for statutory remedies had expired. The Court treated the belated invocation of Article 226 as an attempt to circumvent statutory limitation provisions and held that the petitioners' claims were hit by delay and acquiescence and were therefore misconceived and unsustainable.Claims of the petitioners are barred by delay and acquiescence, and the limitation for remedies under the Act has expired, rendering the petitions untenable.Order 41 Rule 33 CPC not available to non-parties - Whether Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be invoked by the petitioners to obtain parity with parties to the consent settlement - HELD THAT: - The Court explained that Order 41 Rule 33 is a procedural power exercisable in favour of parties to the original suit or appeal, allowing the court to grant relief notwithstanding that an appeal was not filed by certain respondents. The provision cannot be invoked by persons who were not parties to the original proceedings before the trial court or the appellate process. Since the petitioners were not parties to the writ proceedings or the SLPs that resulted in mediation and settlement, Order 41 Rule 33 offered them no assistance.Order 41 Rule 33 CPC is not available to the petitioners, who were not parties to the original proceedings.Final Conclusion: The petitions are dismissed: the petitioners are not entitled to the mediation-assisted settlement or its benefits, their claims are barred by delay and acceptance of the Section 11 award, and Order 41 Rule 33 CPC does not assist them; no order as to costs, and liberty remains to pursue any other appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Issues Involved:1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the same benefits as those who settled through mediation before the award u/s 11.2. Whether the petitioners can invoke Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC.3. Whether the petitioners' claims are barred by delay and acquiescence.Summary:Issue 1: Entitlement to Benefits of Mediation SettlementThe petitioners, landowners whose lands were acquired for Essar Steel Company Limited, filed a petition u/s 226 of the Constitution of India. They sought the same benefits as those landowners who settled through mediation before the award u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court noted that the petitioners had accepted the compensation without demur and did not apply for a reference u/s 18 of the Act. The petitioners' request for additional benefits based on the Supreme Court's mediated settlement was rejected. The Court emphasized that the settlement applied only to those who challenged the acquisition at the outset, before the award u/s 11 was declared. The petitioners, having accepted the award and compensation, could not now claim additional benefits.Issue 2: Invocation of Order 41 Rule 33 of CPCThe petitioners attempted to find shelter under Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC. The Court clarified that this provision could only be invoked by parties who were part of the original proceedings before the trial court. Since the petitioners were not parties in the writ petitions before the High Court or the Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court, they could not invoke Rule 33 of Order 41. The contention raised on this ground was deemed without merit.Issue 3: Delay and AcquiescenceThe Court highlighted that the petitioners approached the Court much after the award was passed and after accepting the compensation. The petitioners' claims were hit by the vice of delay and acquiescence. The Court noted that the petitioners were attempting to circumvent the provisions of the Act related to the period of limitation by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court found the petitioners' attempt to claim benefits at this belated stage to be lacking in bona fides.Conclusion:The petitions were rejected as they did not deserve to be entertained. The Court, however, clarified that this order would not prevent the petitioners from taking appropriate proceedings for their claims before the appropriate forum in accordance with the law. There was no order as to costs.