AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (11) TMI 889
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion under Section 4 of the said Act of 1894 in respect of th the acquired land was issued on 24 September, 1986. The declaration under section 6 of the said Act of 1894 was issued on th th 17 September, 1987. After the award dated 18 September 1989 was made, an application under Section 18 of the said Act of 1894 was filed by the petitioner on the basis of which a reference under section 18 of the said act of 1894 has been made to the Court. It must be noted here that the third respondent (CIDCO) made an th application at Exhibit 38 on 7 April, 2004 contending that the said respondent was the beneficiary of the acquisition and on the basis of an agreement made by the said respondent with the government of Maharashtra ,compensation will be payable by the said respondent. Reliance was placed on sub-section 2 of section 50 of the said Act of 1894 and it was contended that the CIDCO was a necessary party to the land acquisition reference under Section 18 of the said Act of 1894. By the judgment and order th dated 27 October, 2004 the said application was rejected. 4] On 7 April, 2008, the State of Maharashtra represented by the District Government Pleader moved an application exhibi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oject is that of CIDCO. He submitted that the issue involved in the present petition is not whether the CIDCO is the acquiring body or local authority or whether the CIDCO acts as an agent of the State Government. But, the issue is whether the CIDCO was a "person interested" and whether CIDCO is going to ultimately end up in bearing the entire financial burden of paying whole amount of compensation. He submitted that the CIDCO is required to pay the compensation amount to the claimants. He submitted that the term "company" appearing in section 3 of the said Act of 1894 excludes a government company, but the "company" referred to in Section 50 is different and the same words used will have to be construed differently. He has relied upon decisions of the Apex Court which are dealt with in the later part of this judgment. He submitted that the CIDCO, in any event, is a person interested, and therefore, is entitled to a notice of reference under section 18 of the said Act of 1894 in view of clause "b" of Section 20 of said Act of 1984. He submitted that the words "local authority" and "company" in the said Act of 1894 would include all bodies on whose behalf the land is acquired. He su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of land in the area of a new town to be done by any such-corporation, company or subsidiary company aforesaid, as an agent of the State Government; and thereupon, such corporation or company shall, in relation to such area, be declared by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to be the New Town Development Authority for that area]". It must be stated here that aforesaid sub-section 3(A) as well as Section 113 A were brought on the statute book by way of an amendment made by the Maharashtra Act No.21 of 1971. Section 113(A) of the said Act read thus:- "113A.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or in any law for the time being in force, where any corporation or company is declared to be the New Town Development Authority under sub-section (3A) of section 113, the State Government shall acquire either by agreement or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (and such acquisition may have been commenced before the coming into force of this section) any land within the area designated under this Act, as the site of the new town, any land adjacent to that area which is required for the purposes connected with the development of the new town, and any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....states that the same was issued under the provisions of the section 6 of the said Act of 1894 read with section 113-A of the said Act of 1966. The material recital in the said notification read thus:- " And whereas, the Commissioner Konkan Division, is now satisfied that the said lands are needed to be acquired at the expenses of State Government for the said public purpose;" The aforesaid recital makes it very clear that the land was decided to be acquired "at the expenses of the State Government" for public purpose. This factual aspect has some bearing on the decision of this petition. 10] The learned counsel for the CIDCO has relied upon the decision of the State Government which is reflected from the circular dated 12 February, 2008 which is placed on record by the learned counsel for the CIDCO. In the preamble, it refers to the th aforesaid notification dated 20 March, 1971. It also notes that the CIDCO has been appointed by the State Government as the New Town Development Authority for New Bombay. The said government resolution notes that the CIDCO was newly formed in the year 1971 and at the time funds were not available with the CIDCO. It is further stated th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecision, a direction was issued to the CIDCO that in the proceeding of a reference under section 18 of the said Act 1894 , the CIDCO shall oppose the claim for enhancement by pointing out that apart from compensation , allotment of developed plots is being made to the affected persons. 11] From consideration of the aforesaid documents the following factual position emerges: a) For setting up of the new town of New Bombay, in exercise of powers under sub-section 3(A) of section th 113 of the said Act of 1966 under notification dated 20 March 1971, the CIDCO was appointed as the New Town Development Authority. Thus, the State Government decided to get the work of development of the site of the city of New Bombay done through CIDCO as an agent of the State Government. b) The acquiring body for the acquisition of land for New Bombay project was the Town Development Department of the State Government and with effect th from 20 March, 2006 certain Officers of the CIDCO have been empowered to submit the proposals for the acquisition of land on behalf of the State Government. c) Till 1st April, 2008 not only that the CIDCO was not the acquiring body, but, even the compensation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d prior to first April 2008 and therefore, going by the th government resolution dated 12 of February 2008, the compensation and enhanced compensation is payable by the state government. 12A] A reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the CIDCO on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of U.P.Awas Evan Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyandevi [1995(2)SCC 326]. The question before the Apex Court was re- garding the interpretation of Section 50 of the Act of 1894. The conclusions of the decision of the Apex Court are summed up in paragraph 24 of the decision. The relevant conclusions read thus :- "24. To sum up, our conclusions are : 1. Section 50(2) of the L.A. Act confers on a local authority for whom land is being acquired a right to appear in the acquisition proceedings before the Collector and the reference court and ad- duce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. 2. The said right carries with it the right to be given adequate notice by the Collector as well as the reference court before whom acquisition proceedings are pending on the date on which the matter of determination of compensation will be taken up."....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity appointed under Section 3A of Section 113 is doing the work of developing and disposing of the land in the area as an agent of the State Government. Therefore, the acquisition cannot be said to be at the instance of the CIDCO. As stated in government resolution dated 12 April 2008 , the acquiring body is admittedly the town development department of the State Government. After the acquisition, the acquired land may have been transferred to CIDCO. But as stated earlier , the appointment of the CIDCO being under sub-section (3A) of section 113 of the said Act of 1966, the CIDCO acts as an agent of the State Government. The work of development of the site of the New Bombay is being carried out by the CIDCO on behalf of the State Government. Therefore, the acquisition of land in exercise of powers under section 113A of the said Act of 1966 cannot be said to have been made for the benefit of or on behalf of CIDCO. Therefore, none of the aforesaid decisions will apply in the present st case. At least, till 1 April, 2008, the compensation amount in respect of the land acquired for the project of New Bombay was being paid by the State Government and now the decision of the State ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....land under this Act: and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land;" A person can be said to be a person interested provided that he is the person claiming an interest in the compensation to be made on account of acquisition . Thus, the person who claims to be entitled to compensation or a share in the compensation can only be a person who can be said to be claiming interest in the compensation. Here the CIDCO is not claiming interest in the compensation. In fact, the CIDCO has no concern with the payment of compensation. Therefore, the CIDCO cannot claim right of audience on the ground that it is a "person interested". 15] Only possible provision under which the CIDCO could have claimed is Section 50 of the said Act of 1894 which reads thus:- "50.Acquisition of land at cost of a local authority or Company- (1)Where the provisions of this Act are put in force for the purpose of acquiring land at the cost of any fund controlled or managed by a local authority or of any Company, the charges of any incidental to such acquisition shall be defrayed from or by such fund or Company. (2)In any proceeding held b....