Patel Kodarbhai Mohanbhai Versus Sonata Ceramica Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Patel Kodarbhai Mohanbhai Versus Sonata Ceramica Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले



NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2022
(Arising from SLP(Civil) No.19173/2021)
Patel Kodarbhai Mohanbhai …Appellant
Versus
Sonata Ceramica Pvt. Ltd. and Others …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated
26.10.2021 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Civil
Application No. 1/2021 in First Appeal No. 479/2021, by which the High
Court has allowed the said Civil Application preferred on behalf of
respondent No. 1 herein permitting it to be impleaded in First Appeal No.
479/2021 filed by the State of Gujarat and Others, the original claimant –
original landowner (respondent No. 4 in Civil Application) has preferred
the present appeal.
1
3. The appellant herein was the original owner of the land in question
acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1894’). The
Land Acquisition Officer declared the award with respect to the land
acquired on 15.09.2010. At the instance of the appellant herein claiming
to be the original landowner, a reference was made under Section 18 of
the Act 1894 before the learned Reference Court for enhancement of the
amount of compensation. The said reference came to be allowed by the
learned Reference Court vide judgment and award dated 31.03.2018.
The learned Reference Court awarded additional compensation to the
appellant herein.
3.1 Respondent No.1 herein claiming to be the subsequent purchaser
of the land acquired made an application in the disposed of reference
case raising objection not to pay the awarded amount to the appellant.
3.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
passed by the learned Reference Court, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein –
State of Gujarat and its authorities have preferred First Appeal No.
479/2021 before the High Court. In the First Appeal, the State filed a
civil application for stay. By an interim order dated 16.02.2021,
subsequently modified vide order dated 26.02.2021, the appellant herein
was permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited by the State
and the remaining 50% was directed to be deposited/invested in
2
cumulative fixed deposit in any nationalised bank. Respondent No.1
herein apprehended that as the appellant herein shall withdraw 50% of
the amount of compensation as per interim order dated 16.02.2021,
further modified vide order dated 26.02.2021, and according to
respondent No.1 herein claiming to be the subsequent purchaser, it is
entitled to the entire amount of compensation being the subsequent
purchaser of the entire land purchased vide five registered sale deeds
dated 14.07.2014, respondent No.1 herein submitted an application
before the authority/Collector for making reference under Section 30 of
the Act 1894. Simultaneously, respondent No.1 herein also preferred the
present Civil Application No. 1/2021 permitting it to be joined as partyrespondent in First Appeal No. 479/2021. By the impugned order dated
26.10.2021, the High Court has permitted respondent No.1 herein to be
joined as party-respondent in the First Appeal preferred by the State.
3.3 Being aggrieved by order dated 26.10.2021 permitting respondent
No.1 herein to be joined as party-respondent in First Appeal No.
479/2021 filed by the State, the original claimant – original landowner –
respondent No. 1 in the First Appeal has preferred the present appeal.
4. We have heard Shri Purvish Jitendra Malkan, learned Advocate
appearing for the appellant and Shri Harin P. Raval, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.1. We have gone
through the application filed by respondent No.1 herein before the High
3
Court to implead it as party-respondent in the First Appeal filed by the
State. Considering the averments in the application for impleadment, it
can be seen that the dispute can be said to be apportionment of the
amount of compensation. Considering the averments in the application,
it is the case on behalf of respondent No.1 herein – original applicant
that it has purchased the acquired land by five different registered sale
deeds dated 14.07.2014 and therefore it is entitled to the enhanced
amount of compensation as against the appellant herein. On the
aforesaid ground alone, respondent No.1 herein – original applicant
cannot be permitted to be impleaded in the First Appeal preferred by the
State challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference
Court enhancing the amount of compensation which, as such, was in the
reference at the instance of the appellant herein – original landowner. If
there is any dispute with respect to apportionment of the amount of
compensation, the same has to be adjudicated upon and/or resolved as
per Section 30 of the Act 1894. Section 30 of the Act 1894 reads as
under:
“30. Dispute as to apportionment. - When the amount of compensation
has been settled under section 11, if any dispute arises as to the
apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to
whom the same or any part thereof, is payable, the Collector may refer
such dispute to the decision of the Court.”
5. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as such respondent
No.1 herein has already submitted an application to the Collector raising
4
dispute as to the apportionment of the amount of award under Section 30
of the Act 1894. However, it is the case on behalf of respondent No.1
herein – original applicant that in the meantime the appellant herein will
withdraw 50% of the amount of compensation as per the order passed
by the High Court in Civil Application No. 1/2020 in First Appeal No.
479/2021 dated 16.02.2021, further modified vide order dated
26.02.2021. The aforesaid can be taken care of by ordering that till the
proceedings under Section 30 of the Act 1894 are terminated and/or
disposed of and the dispute with respect to apportionment of the amount
of compensation is resolved, the appellant herein cannot be permitted to
withdraw the amount of compensation as the apportionment of the
amount of compensation can always be subject to the ultimate outcome
of the proceedings under Section 30 of the Act 1894.
6. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the High Court
dated 26.10.2021 in Civil Application No. 1/2021 in First Appeal No.
479/2021 permitting respondent No.1 herein – original applicant to be
impleaded as party-respondent in the said First Appeal is hereby
quashed and set aside. However, the same shall be without prejudice to
the rights and contentions of the respective parties in the pending
proceedings under Section 30 of the Act 1894. It is directed that the
appellant herein shall not be permitted to withdraw the amount of
compensation as per order passed by the High Court dated 16.02.2021,
5
further modified by order dated 26.02.2021, passed in Civil Application
No. 1/2020 till the conclusion of the proceedings under Section 30 of the
Act 1894. It is directed that the entire amount of compensation
deposited by the State shall be invested in the name of the Nazir of the
Reference Court in cumulative fixed deposit in any nationalised bank,
initially for a period of three years, to be further renewed from time to
time, subject to the ultimate outcome of the proceedings under Section
30 of the Act 1894. It is ordered that in the proceedings under Section
30 of the Act 1894, the order of apportionment is passed and the
person/party in whose favour the order is passed shall be permitted to
withdraw 50% of the amount of compensation as per the order passed
by the High Court dated 16.02.2021, further modified vide order dated
26.02.2021, passed in Civil Application No. 1/2020 in First Appeal No.
479/2021. It is further observed and clarified that proceedings under
Section 30 of the Act 1894 and/or any proceedings arising out of the
proceedings under Section 30 of the Act 1894 shall be decided and
disposed of in accordance with law and its own merits and without in any
way being influenced by the present order and the present order be
treated to have been passed by way of interim arrangement only.
7. The present appeal stands disposed of in terms of the above order.
……………………………………..J.
[M.R. SHAH]
6
NEW DELHI; ……………………………………..J.
SEPTEMBER 23, 2022 [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
7

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

Atal Pension Yojana-(APY Chart) | अटल पेंशन योजना