Supreme Court of India
ILLA ROY CHOWDHURYversusSHYAMALI DAS AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 709
- Decided
- 16 May 2008
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
A conditional order conferring a benefit is ineffective unless the condition precedent is satisfied; therefore the High Court order was set aside.
Summary
The case concerned a property acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The First Respondent, Shyamali Das, sought to be impleaded as a party in a reference petition under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, but the Supreme Court had earlier found that no such application had been filed. The Calcutta High Court later issued a conditional order allowing her to file the application, subject to certain conditions. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the effect of that conditional order, holding that a respondent must satisfy the condition precedent before deriving any benefit; since the conditions were not fulfilled, the High Court order could not be given effect. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of a conditional order of the High Court allowing a party to file an application under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act when the condition precedent is not satisfied?
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 30, s. 31
Subjects
Land Acquisition ActSection 30Section 31conditional ordercondition precedentreference petitionSupreme Courtappeal
Judgment
[2008] 9 S.C.R. 239
ILLA ROY CHOWDHURY A
v.
SHYAMALI DAS AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.3638 of 2008)
MAY 16, 2008
B
[S.B. SINHA AND MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 30 and 31 - Effect of the
order of High Court allowing the Re$pondent to file appropri-
ate application before the Collector for reference in terms of
ss. 30 and 31 which was a conditional order- Held: If a condi- C
tional order was passed, with a view to derive benefit thereun-
der, it was obligatory on the part of Respondent to satisfy the
condition precedent therefor - If the condition precedent was
not satisfied, the question of taking advantage thereof would
• not arise. D
In a matter relating to property acquired under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a reference was made by the
Collector in terms of the provisions thereof. The facts of
the matter were noticed by a Bench of this Court in an
earlier case. One of the questions which arose for con- E
sideration therein was as to whether the First Respon-
dent, in terms of an observation made by the High Court,
had filed an application for reference under ss.30 and 31
of the said Act. This Court noticing that no such applica-
tion had been filed, held that the First Respondent was F
not entitled to be impleaded as a party.
In the aforementioned premise, the contesting re-
spondents herein filed a writ petition before the High
Court, which by the impugned judgment, directed the G
concerned respondents to dispose of the First
Respondent's application for reference in terms of ss. 30
and 31 of the Act.
239 H
240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.
A In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that
the impugned judgment of the High Court could not be
sustained as no such application had been filed as found
by this Court in the earlier case.
The question which arose for consideration before
8 this Court in the present appeal was as to what would be
the effect of the order of the High Court allowing the First
Respondent to file an appropriate application before the ~
Collector for reference in terms of ss. 30 and 31 of the Act
which was a conditional order, when the conditions pre-
C cedent therefor were not satisfied.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1. If a conditional order was passed, with a
view to derive a benefit thereunder, it was obligatory on
D the part of the respondent to satisfy the condition prece- •
dent therefor. If the condition precedent has not been
satisfied, the question of taking advantage thereof would
not arise. [Para 14] [245-C]
1.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no
E fruitful purpose would be served in allowing the matter to
proceed. [Para 16] [246-D-E]
Shyamali Das v. Illa Chowdhry, (2006) 12 SCC 300- re-
ferred to.
F CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3638
of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2006 of
the High Court at Calcutta In W.P. No. 27264 of 2006
G Bijan Kumar Ghosh, R.K. Gupta, S.K. Gupta, Arun Yadav
and A.N. Baradaiyar for the Appellant.
Pradip K. Ghosh, Chinmoy A. Khaladhar, Rukhsana
Choudhary, Anindita Gupta, Rajesh Srivastava, Tara Chandra
H Sharma, Neelam Sharma, Rajeev Sharma and Rameshwar
ILLA ROY CHOWDHURY v. SHYAMALI DAS 241
AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J. ]
+
Prasad Goyal for the Respondents. A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
1. This petition is directed against a judgment and order
B
;. dated 20 1h December, 2006 passed by the High Court of
~
Calcutta in Writ Petition No. 27264 of 2006.
By reason of the said order the High Court directed the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as also the other concerned respon-
dents, added therein to dispose of the First Respondent's ap- c
plication for reference in terms of Sections 30 and 31 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
2. The matter relates to a property acquired under the said
Act. A reference was made by the Collector in terms of the pro-
~
visions thereof. First Respondent intended to be impleaded as D
the party therein. The same was rejected.
3. Contesting parties herein claimed themselves to be the
heirs and legal representatives of Rani Rashmoni. We need
not state the facts of the matter in detail as the same has been
E
noticed by a Bench of this Court in Shyamali Das v. Illa
Chowdhry, (2006) 12 sec 300.
One of the questions which arose for consideration therein
",( was as to whether the First Respondent, in terms of an obser-
vation made by another learned Single of the High Court, had F
filed an application for reference under Sections 30 and 31 of
the said Act. It was noticed therein that such an application had
not been filed. It was furthermore observed:-
"21. It is one thing to say that a proceeding under Sections
30 and 31 of the Act was maintainable at the instance of G
the appellant. She was given an opportunity to file the
same by the Calcutta High Court in terms of its order
dated 22-9-2000. She did not avail the said opportunity.
Having na.t availed the opportunity, in our opinion, she was
not entitled to be impleaded as a party." H
242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.
_..
A 4. We would notice some of the orders passed by the
Courts in the earlier rounds of litigation.
5. From the order dated 26tti September, 2005 passed in
C.O. No.3447 of 2005 by a learned Single Judge of the High
Court it appears that a question arose as to whether such an
B application had been filed or not. The said order reads as un-
...
der:- ..
" Put up the matter on Friday (30.9.2005) under the heading
'For Orders' before Listed Motion in the supplementary
c list.
Mr. Subroto Mukhopadhyay, Ld. Advocate appears for the
opposite party no.3. Mr. Mukhopadhyay is requested to
obtain instruction from his client as to whether the opposite
parties no. 1 and 2 have filed any application under
D sections 30 and 33 of the Land Acquisition Act. ,..
Smt. Shyamali Das, the opposite party No.1 appears in
person. She informs this Court that on the next date the
opposite party no.2, who is her son, shall also appear in
person.
E
The requiring authority, viz. West Bengal Housing Board
may hand over the cheque to the Collector and the
Collected is directed to retain the cheque for the present."
.......
6. In Writ Petition No. 19298 of 2000- filed by the First
F Respondent a learned Single Judge of the High Court while
disposing of the same by his order dated 22"d September, 2000
directed :-
"This Court sitting in writ jurisdiction cannot determine
the entitlement to the compensation awarded. Therefore,
G
if the petitioner is. aggrieved, it is open to her to apply
before the Collector for reference under Section 30 read
with Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act if she is so
advised. Section 30 does not postulate any time-limit and
as such it can be made at any point of time and if such
H
ILLA ROY CHOWDHURY v. SHYAMALI DAS 243
AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J. ]
application is made, the Collector may decide the same A
and pass appropriate order on the said application in
accordance with law. I (sic) necessary, by making reference
under the provision of Section 30 and may also resort to
Section 31 if he is so advised according to his own wisdom
and discretion after having examined the dispute raised B
,. that there are prima facie disputes existing which required
to be examined. In such circumstances, the Collector is
.. not entitled to adjudicate the dispute which is the subject-
matter of adjudication by a court; it is only to say that there
is no prima facie case raising any dispute and if prima c
facie case exists then he has to make the reference under
Section 30 read with Section 31. This decision is to be
taken before further disbursement is made. The Collector
will also hear the other no appear (sic) the respondents
whom the petitioner will serve a copy of this order along
D
with a copy of the writ petition within a period of one week
A
from date; in default, this order will stand recalled."
7. In the aforementioned premise, the contesting respon-
dents herein filed a writ petition before the Calcutta lrligh Court
which was registered as Writ Petition No.27264 of 2006 result- E
ing in passing of the impugned judgment.
8. Mr. Bijan Kumar Ghosh, learned counsel appearing 6n
beh~lf of the appellant submits that the impugned judgment
cannot be sustained as it was found by this Court.that no such
application had been filed. F
9. Mr. Chinomy A. Kaladkhar, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, on the other hand, contends
that filing of such an application is not disputed and in that view
of the matter the High Court cannot be said to have committed
G
any error in passing the impugned judgment.
10. Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, learned counsel appear-
ing on behalf of the State of West Bengal, however, brought to
our notice that although such an application had, in fact, been
filed, but, in view of the non-compliance of the order passed by H
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.
A the learned Single Judge, no order could be passed thereupon.
11. Before this Court in the aforesaid appeal a contention
was raised that no such application was filed. It was in the afore-
mentioned situation the abovesaid obseNations were made.
8 12. A review application was filed thereagainst which, by
reason of the order dated 141h December, 2006 was dismissed
"'
(although allegedly the said fact was also brought to the notice )>
of this Court), stating:-
"We have gone through the review petition and the relevant
c documents. In our opinion no case for review is made out.
The review petition is accordingly dismissed."
It, therefore, appears that this Court had, inter alia, pro-
ceeded on the basis that no such application had been filed.
First Respondent, however, in her affidavit stated that such an
D
application had been filed. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 herein, how- I-
ever, in their counter-affidavit stated as under :-
"16. Thereafter Smt. Shyamali Das, Respondent no.1
submitted an application to the District Magistrate, South
E 24-Parganas on 8.8.2001 stated to be the Application
under section 30 read with section 31 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 without any document of ownership
of the said land. No where in the said Application she
mentioned Plot No.1028 of Mouja Rajapur to be her own ......
F against which award was declared. Even she had not
submitted any proof of seNice of writ petition and copy of
order dated 22.9.2000 to other non-appearing
respondents as per order dated 22.9.2000 of Hon'ble
Single Judge of the High Court at Calcutta.
G 13. We will, therefore, proceed on the assumption that such
an application indeed had been filed, and the contention made
before us in the earlier round of litigation was wrong.
14. The question, however, which arises for consideration
is what would be the effect of the order of the Calcutta High
H
ILLA ROY CHOWDHURY v. SHYAMALI DAS 245
AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J. ]
Court allowing the First Respondent to file an appropriate ap- A
plication before the Collector for reference in terms of Sections
30 and 31. of the Act which was a conditional order. It was found
as of fact that the conditions precedents therefor were not sat-
isfied.
The consequence laid down in the said order, therefore, B
>
ensued, in terms whereof it stood recalled. If that be so, the
~
order of the High Court directing to dispose of the application
being innocuous was not required to be given effect to. If a con-
ditional order was passed, with a view to derive a benefit there-
under, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent to satisfy c
the condition precedent therefor. If the condition precedent has
not been satisfied, the question of taking advantage thereof
would not arise.
15. In this case, as noticed hereinbefore an attempt on
D
> the part of the First Respondent to get herself impleaded as
,.. party in the Reference Petition did not fructify. The said order
attained finality. It does not appear that the said respondent was
not sure as to whether such an application had been filed or
not. In the judgment of this Court, it will be a bare repetition to
say, that a concession has been recorded. We need not go into E
the effect of such a concession as it now transpires that the
same was wrongly made.
17. After receiving the Application dated 8.8.2001 of Smt.
...,., Shyamali Das - Respondent No.1, she was once again F
asked by Special Land Acquisition Officer, South 24-
Paraganas vide Memo No. W.P. No. 19298(W)/2000 L.A.
1957 dated 23.8.2001 to submit the Land Schedule i.e.
name of Mauja, Plot No., Khatian No., Area of the plots
with deails of acquisition alongwith documents in respect
G
of title within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said
letter so that Hon'ble Court's order can be complied with.
-I This letter was received by Smt. Shyamali Das -
Respondent No.1 on 24.8.2001 under her own signature.
18. As Smt. Shyamali Das - Respodnent no.1 had not H
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 9 S.C.R.
+
A submitted any document in support of her claim in her
application dated 8.8.2001 as asked for vide eltter dated
23.8.2001 abovementioend by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, South-24 Parganas, no further action
could be taken on her application by the Collector, South
B 24-Parganas, Alipore.
19. On the other hand, as per order dated 22.9.2000 of
Hon'ble Single Judge of the High Court at Calcutta dated
22.9.2000, she could not produce any proof of service of
copy of W.P. No. 19298 (W) of 2000 and copy of order
c dated 22.9.2000 to other non-appearing respondents
within 7 days from the date of order i.e. 22.9.2000.
Therefore, the order dated 22.9.2000 stood automatically
recalled, as directed in the said order."
D 16. We would not have, therefore, interfered with the im-
pugned judgment despite the concession made before us but
•
keeping in view the statement made by the State of West Ben-
gal, we are of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served
in allowing the matter to proceed pursuant to the observations
made by the learned Single Judge.
E
17. For the reasons abovesaid, the impugned judgment
is set aside. This appeal is allowed. In the facts and circum-
stances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
8.8.8. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Land Acquisition Act"Sign in to search