Supreme Court of India

MIS NATIONAL ALUMINIUM CO. LTD.versusRAJ KISHORE @ SAHU JENA AND ANR.

Citation: 1996 INSC 41
Decided: 9 January 1996
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYG B PATTANAIK

Holding

A beneficiary under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is entitled to be impleaded as a party in the pending Sub‑Judge proceedings.

Summary

The appellant, Mis National Aluminium Co. Ltd., sought to enforce its right as a beneficiary of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in pending proceedings before the Sub‑Judge of Angul. The respondents, Raj Kishore @ Sahu Jena and others, were served notice but failed to appear. The legal question was whether a beneficiary under the Act could be impleaded as a party in the Sub‑Judge's proceedings. The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in UP. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors., (1994) 7 SCC 304, which held that beneficiaries are entitled to be impleaded. Accordingly, the Court held that the appellant could be impleaded and allowed the appeal without costs.

Issues considered

Whether a party who is a beneficiary of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is entitled to be impleaded as a party in pending proceedings before a Sub‑Judge.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Subjects

Land Acquisition ActbeneficiaryimpleadmentcompensationCivil AppealSub‑Judge jurisdiction

Judgment

A                     MIS NATIONAL ALUMINIUM CO. LTD.
                                     v.
                     RAJ KISHORE @ SAHU JENA AND ANR.

                                 JANUARY 9, 1996

B                 [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]


           Larul Acquisition Act, I 894 :

          Compensation and other benefits-Held, convered by earlier decisior>-
    Party being benefiicary entitled to be impleaded in the pending proceedings
c   b~fore the Sub-Judge.


          UP. Avas Evam Vikas Parisad v. Gyan Devi (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors., JT
    (1994) 7 SC 304, held applicable.

           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2239 of 1996.
D
          From the Judgment and Order dated 11.3.93 of the Orissa High Court
    in C.R. No. 72 of 1992.

           Ashok Kr. Gupta for the Appellant.

E          Ms. Kirti Misra for the Respondents

           The f?llowing Order of the Court was delivered :
                                                                                    ..
           Leave granted.

           Though notice was served on the respondents, no one has appeared for
F
    the first respondent-claimant. The controversy is no longer res-integra. They
    are covered by the judgment of this Court in UP. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad
    v. Gyan Devi (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors., JT (1994) 7 SC 304. In that view, the
    appellant being beneficiary is entitled to be impleaded as a party in the
    pending proceedings in the court of Subordinate Judge, Angul.
G
           The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

    G.N.                                                        Appeal allowed.




                                            306

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