SHRACHI BURDWAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

                        [2021] 13 S.C.R.923                              923


   SHRACHI BURDWAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED                            A
                                  v.
             THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 5856 of 2021)
                        OCTOBER 05, 2021                                 B
           [M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
       Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Notification issued under s.4 for
acquiring land for public purpose for setting up the Satellite
Township for Burdwan Town at public expenses – After the
                                                                         C
declaration was published under s.6, an unregistered MoA was
executed by the BDA with Bengal Shrachi who was chosen in a bid
process amongst some other companies for development of lands
acquired under a public private partnership – Land acquisition
collector declared award – The said amount was paid by BDA –
Thereafter, the state government took over possession of the lands       D
from the farmers and handed it over to BDA and BDA handed it
over to Bengal Shrachi – In the meantime, at the instance of the
landowners, references were successfully made to reference court
wherein compensation was enhanced from Rs.5.8 lacs to Rs.35 lacs
– Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment
                                                                         E
and order passed by the Reference Court, at the instance of the
BDA, four appeals are pending before the High Court – Feeling
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by
the Reference Court, the appellant Shrachi Burdwan filed a Writ
Petition before the High Court challenging the judgment and award
passed by the Reference Court enhancing the amount of                    F
compensation – Maintainability of writ petition – Held: Appellant
was not a party to the Reference proceedings – The locus of the
appellant was seriously disputed on behalf of the landowners/
claimants and it was seriously disputed whether the appellant can
be said to be a ‘person interested’ within the definition of s.3(b) of
                                                                         G
the LA Act – In the facts and circumstances of the case and more
particularly when the locus of the appellant to challenge the
judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is seriously
disputed and whether the appellant can be said to be a ‘person
interested’ within the definition of s.3(b) of the LA Act and thereby
the appellant can challenge the judgment and award passed by the         H
                                  923
924            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2021] 13 S.C.R.


A     Reference Court enhancing the compensation are all disputed
      questions of facts and are all contentious issues, High Court ought
      not to have entertained the writ petition under Art.226 and ought
      not to have set aside the judgment and award passed by the Reference
      Court enhancing the amount of compensation under the provisions
      of the Land Acquisition Act – The remedy available to the appellant
B
      would have been to prefer appeal before the High Court with
      application for leave to appeal.
            Disposing of the appeals, the Court
             HELD: The appellant Shrachi Burdwan was not a party to
C     the Reference proceedings. The locus of the appellant – Shrachi
      Burdwan has been seriously disputed on behalf of the landowners/
      claimants and it is seriously disputed whether the appellant -
      Shrachi Burdwan can be said to be a ‘person interested’ within
      the definition of Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act. As such
      out of 24 Reference cases, before the High Court in Writ Petition
D     No. 9778(W) of 2012, the appellant restricted the prayer with
      respect to only four respondents namely 6, 16, 17 and 25 in the
      writ petition. At the instance of the BDA four appeals challenging
      the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court are
      pending before the High Court. Therefore, in the facts and
E     circumstances of the case and more particularly when the locus
      of the appellant, Shrachi Burdwan to challenge the judgment and
      award passed by the Reference Court is seriously disputed and
      whether the appellant, Shrachi Burdwan can be said to be a
      ‘person interested’ within the definition of Section 3(b) of the
      Land Acquisition Act and thereby the appellant can challenge
F     the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court
      enhancing the compensation are all disputed questions of facts
      and are all contentious issues, we are of the opinion that Single
      Judge of the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ
      petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and ought
G     not to have set aside the judgment and award passed by the
      Reference Court enhancing the amount of compensation under
      the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The remedy available
      to the appellant would have been to prefer appeal before the High
      Court with application for leave to appeal. [Para 8][935-E-H; 936-
      A-C]
H
 SHRACHI BURDWAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED v.                  925
        THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

     N. P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal            A
     Constituency, Namakkal Salem District and Four
     Others, AIR 1952 SC 64 : [1952] SCR 218; State of
     U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh, [1958] SCR 595; Whirlpool
     Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and
     Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 1 : [1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 359;
                                                                B
     Harbanslal Sahnia and Anr. v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.
     and Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 107; Neyvely Lignite
     Corporation Ltd. v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)
     Neyvely and Ors., (1995) 1 SCC 221 : [1994] 4 Suppl.
     SCR 567; U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi
     (Dead) by LRs. And Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 326 : [1994] 4       C
     Suppl. SCR 646; Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead)
     by Legal Representatives and Ors. v. State of Karnataka
     and Anr., (2015) 10 SCC 469 : [2015] 9 SCR 498;
     Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. State of Haryana and
     Ors. (2017) 4 SCC 760 : [2017] 1 SCR 767; Hindu
                                                                D
     Kanya Maha Vidyalaya, Jind and Anr. v. Municipal
     Committee, Jind and Ors., (1988) Suppl. SCC 719;
     Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. v. Francis Victor
     Countinho (Dead) by LRs., (1980) 3 SCC 223 : [1980]
     3 SCR 235; Neelagangabai and Anr. v. State of
     Karnataka and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 1321 : [1990] 3            E
     SCR 20 - referred to.
                     Case Law Reference
[1952] SCR 218                  referred to         para 4.3
[1958] SCR 595                  referred to         para 4.3    F
[1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 359         referred to         para 4.3
(2003) 2 SCC 107                referred to         para 4.3
[1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 567         referred to         para 4.3
[1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 646         referred to         para 4.3    G
[2015] 9 SCR 498                referred to         para 5.2
[2017] 1 SCR 767                referred to         para 5.2
(1988) Suppl. SCC 719           referred to         para 5.2
                                                                H
926            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 13 S.C.R.


A     [1980] 3 SCR 235                    referred to          para 5.3
      [1990] 3 SCR 20                     referred to          para 5.3
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5856
      of 2021.
B           From the Judgment and Order dated 11.09.2019 of the High Court
      of Calcutta at Calcutta in FMA No. 887 of 2019.
            With
            Civil Appeal Nos. 5857-5880 of 2021.
            Shyam Divan, Basava Prabhu Patil, Ms. Kiran Suri, Ranjit Kumar,
C
      Sr. Advs., Arindam Bannerji, Amit Kumar Mishra, Shashank Manish,
      Ms. Smriti Shah, Ms. Nidhi Sahay, Sudipto Sircar, Rajkumar Gupta, Sarad
      Kumar Singhania, Ms. Rashmi Singhania, Kumarjit Banerjee, Gaurav
      Gupta, Ms. Sanchari Chakroborty, Aakash Khattar, Rajesh Kumar,
      Gaurav Goel, Suhaan Mukerji, Vishal Prasad, Nikhil Parikshith, Abhishek
D     Manchanda, Sayandeep Pahari, for M/s PLR Chambers and Co.,
      Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Ms. Srija Chowdhury, Anant, Advs. For
      the appearing parties.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            M. R. SHAH, J.
E
             1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order dated 11.09.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
      Calcutta in FMA No. 887 of 2019by which the High Court has allowed
      the said appeal preferred by the original landowners/claimants by quashing
      and setting aside the judgment and order dated 16.02.2017 passed by
F     the learned Single Judge and consequently dismissed the Writ Petition
      No. 9778(W) of 2012, Shrachi Burdwan Developers Private Limited
      [claiming to be interested party and ‘person interested’as defined under
      Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as
      “Act”)] has preferred the present Civil Appeal No.5856 of 2021 arising
G     out of SLP (C) No. 29801 of 2019.
            2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order dated 26.02.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
      Calcutta in C.O. No. 1232 of 2018 and other allied matters by which the
      learned Single Judge of the High Court has allowed the said revisional
H     applications and has quashed and set aside the awards passed by the
  SHRACHI BURDWAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED v.                                927
   THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Reference Court enhancing the compensation, the original landowners            A
have preferred the present Civil Appeal Nos. 5857-5880 of 2021 arising
out of SLP (C) Nos.9991-10014 of 2020.
      3. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under:-
      3.1 Burdwan Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as
“BDA”) requisitioned the land in question. The Government issued 12            B
separate notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Actin the
months of April and May, 2005 stating inter alia that the lands would be
acquired for public purpose for setting up the Satellite Township for
Burdwan Town at public expenses. That thereafter, the declaration under
Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published.                           C
       3.2 In the month of August, 2005, Paschim Bardhaman Krishi
Kalyan Samity, a group of farmers filed a writ petition before the High
Court challenging the notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act on
the grounds inter alia that the acquisition are not for public purpose and
not on public expenses but on private expenses of Bengal Shrachi Housing       D
Development Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Bengal Shrachi”).
According to the original claimants – landowners, BDA filed objection
pleading that the entire cost of acquisition is borne by the BDA itself and
the lands were needed for public purpose. The High Court dismissed the
said writ petition holding the acquisition was for public purpose and at
public expenses, entirely to be paid by BDA.                                   E

       3.3 It appears that after declaration was published under Section
6 of the Act, an unregistered Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) dated
08.03.2006 was executed by the BDA with Bengal Shrachi who was
chosen in a bid process amongst some other companies for development
of lands acquired under a public private partnership.                          F
       3.4 That thereafter, the Land Acquisition Collector declared award
under Section 12(1) of the Act. The said amount was paid by BDA.
That thereafter on 26.02.2007, the State of West Bengal took over
possession of the lands from the farmers and handed it over to BDA and
BDA handed it over to Bengal Shrachi. In the meantime, at the instance         G
of the landowners References were made to the Reference Court under
Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court allowed the References
and enhanced the compensation from Rs.5,80,700/- per acre as
determined by the Collector to Rs.35,00,000/- per acre together with
solatium, interest, and other statutory dues thereon.
                                                                               H
928            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2021] 13 S.C.R.


A            3.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment
      and order passed by the Reference Court, at the instance of the BDA,
      four appeals are pending before the High Court of judicature at Calcutta.
            3.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
      passed by the learned Reference Court, the appellant herein Shrachi
B     Burdwan Developers Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Shrachi
      Burdwan”) filed a Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012 before the High
      Court of Calcutta in which the following prayers were stated:-
            a) A declaration that the petitioners are not liable to pay any
               amount over and above the original cost of acquisition already
C              paid to the respondent authorities;
            b) In the alternative, a declaration that the impugned judgments
               and/or orders passed by the Learned Additional District Judge,
               Burdwan in the 24 land acquisition cases (being Annexure
               “P:29” hereto) and detailed in the letter dated 16thDecember,
D              2011 are arbitrary, illegal, null and Void;
            c) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue restraining
               the respondent authorities from demanding from the petitioners
               any amount over and above the original cost of acquisition
               already paid to the respondent authorities;
E           d) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue calling
               upon the respondent authorities to forthwith revoke, rescind,
               recall, cancel and set aside:-
               i. The impugned judgments and/or orders passed by the
                  Learned Additional District judge, Burdwan in the 24 land
F                 acquisition cases (being Annexure “P29 hereto) and detailed
                  in the letter dated 16 December, 2011 (being Annexure
                  °P27° hereto;
               ii. The purported decision arrived at the board meeting dated
                   11th January, 2012 (being Annexure “P30” hereto);
G           e) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue restraining
               the respondent authorities from acting under and from giving
               any further and/or any effect to:-
               i. The impugned judgments and/or orders passed by the
                  Learned Additional District Judge, Burdwan in the 24 land
H                 acquisition cases (being Annexure “P29” hereto);
SHRACHI BURDWAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED v.                              929
 THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      ii. The purported decision arrived at the board meeting dated        A
          11thJanuary, 2012 (being Annexure “P30” hereto);
   f) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing
      the respondents to hear the 24 land acquisition cases (being
      Annexure “P29” hereto) afresh after serving notice and granting
      hearing to the petitioners in accordance with law;                   B
   g) A writ of and/or in the nature of Prohibition do issue prohibiting
      the respondents from proceeding with:-
      i. The impugned judgments and/or orders passed by the
         Learned Additional District Judge, Burdwan in the 24 land
         acquisition cases (being Annexure “P29” hereto);                  C
      ii. The purported decision arrived at the board meeting dated
          11thJanuary, 2012 (being Annexure “P30” hereto);
   h) A writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari do issue calling
      upon the respondents to transmit to this Hon’ble Court all the
                                                                           D
      records pertaining the impugned judgments and/or orders
      passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Burdwan in
      the 24 land acquisition cases (being Annexure “P29” hereto)
      so that conscionable justice may be done by quashing the same;
   i) Rule Nisi in terms of the prayers above;
                                                                           E
   j) Injunction restraining the respondents from demanding from
      the petitioners any amount over and above the original cost of
      acquisition already paid to the respondent authorities;
   k) Stay of operation of:-
      i. The impugned judgments and/or orders passed by the                F
         Learned Additional District Judge, Burdwan in the 24 land
         acquisition cases (being Annexure “P29” hereto);
      ii. The purported decision arrived at the board meeting dated
          11thJanuary, 2012 (being Annexure “P30” hereto);
                                                                           G
   m) A direction upon the Land Acquisition Collector, Burdwan to
      issue notice to the respondent No.27 and 28;
   n) Ad interim orders in terms of prayers (j) and (m) above;
   o) Such further or other order or orders be made and/ or directions
      be given as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper,”             H
930             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 13 S.C.R.


A            3.7 The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the said
      writ petition by the judgment and order dated 16.02.2017 and quashed
      and set aside the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in
      the Reference cases initiated by original respondent Nos. 6, 16, 17 and
      25 in the Writ Petition No.9778(W) of 2012. At this stage, it is required
      to be noted that the writ petition was confined to only four respondents
B
      referred to herein above. Learned Single Judge held that the petitioner
      can be said to be an ‘interested party’ within the definition of Section
      3(b) of the Act and as the Reference Court passed the judgment and
      award enhancing the amount of compensation without giving an
      opportunity to the appellant – Shrachi Burdwan Developers Private
C     Limited. While quashing and setting aside the judgment and award passed
      by the learned Reference Court, learned Single Judge of the High Court
      remanded the case back to the learned Additional District Judge,
      Burdwan (Reference Court) for being decided afresh after giving an
      opportunity of hearing to the appellant company.
D            3.8 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
      passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.02.2017, the landowners
      preferred appeal before the High Court being FMA No. 887 of 2019 and
      by the impugned judgment and order dated 11.09.2019, the Division Bench
      of the High Court has allowed the said appeal and has quashed and set
      aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge leaving
E     the original writ petitioners - appellants herein free to pursue whatever
      other remedies may be available to them in accordance with law.
             3.9 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, appellant
      herein – Shrachi Burdwan has preferred the present Civil Appeal No.5856
F     of 2021.
             3.10 In the meantime, the landowners preferred the execution
      petition before the Reference Court. In the execution petitions, Shrachi
      Burdwan preferred the application to implead them as party relying upon
      the judgment and order dated 16.02.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.
G     9778(W) of 2012. The Reference Court – Executing Court dismissed
      the said applications, which were the subject matter of revision
      applications before the High Court being C.O. No. 1232 of 2018 and
      other allied revision applications. At this stage, it is required to be noted
      that the Writ Petition No.9778(W) of 2012 was restricted to only four
H     respondents namely 6, 16, 17 and 25 in the Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of
  SHRACHI BURDWAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED v.                                  931
   THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

2012. However, the applications were filed in the execution petitions            A
with respect to 24 claimants/landowners and 24 revision applications
were preferred before the High Court. Before the learned Single Judge,
Shrachi Burdwan relied upon the judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012 by which the
learned Single Judge held that Shrachi Burdwan is a necessary and
                                                                                 B
interested party and can be said to be ‘interested person’ within the
definition of Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act. Relying upon the
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No. 9778(W) of 2012, which as such was set aside by the Division
Bench of the High Court by its judgment and order dated 11.09.2019
passed in FMA No. 887 of 2019, the learned Single Judge allowed the              C
said revision applications being C.O. No. 1232 of 2018 and other allied
revision applications and unfortunately has quashed and set aside the
judgment and award passed by the Reference Court holding that Shrachi
Burdwan – the revisionist can be said to be a “person interested” within
the definition as envisaged in Section 3(b) of the Act. By the impugned
                                                                                 D
judgment and order, the learned Single Judge of the High Court has
passed the following order in paragraph 113:-
      “113. In view of the aforesaid findings, all the revisional applications
      which are taken up for hearing together, are allowed, thereby
      setting aside the orders impugned therein and holding that the
      reference awards, enhancing the amount of compensation, were               E
      null and void in the eye of law, since those were passed without
      impleading Shrachi, a necessary party due to its direct interest in
      the compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of
      land, as envisaged in Section 3(b) of the LA Act. However, this
      will not prevent the land losers from initiating fresh proceedings         F
      under Section 18 of the LA Act, impleading Shrachi as a party.”
       3.11 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated
26.02.2020 passed in C.O. No.1232 of 2018 and other allied revision
applications quashing and setting aside the judgment and award passed            G
by the Reference Court, the original landowners/claimants have preferred
the present Civil Appeal Nos.5857-5880 of 2021.
      4. We have heard Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of Shrachi Burdwan Developers Private Limited in
Civil Appeal No. 5856 of 2021 on maintainability of the writ petition            H
932               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2021] 13 S.C.R.


A     before the learned Single Judge challenging the judgment and award
      passed by the learned Reference Court.
             4.1 Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing for the
      appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances
      of the case, the appellant was justified in invoking the jurisdiction of the
B     High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the
      judgment and award passed by the Reference Court.
             4.2 It is submitted that as the appellant can be said to be a ‘person
      interested’ in view of the definition of Section 3(b) of the Act in as much
      as the ultimate liability to pay the enhanced compensation would be upon
C     the appellant and as the appellant was not impleaded as a party in the
      Reference under Section 18 of the Act and was not heard by the
      Reference Court before enhancing the amount of compensation the
      appellant was justified in invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under
      Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that in the facts
      and circumstances of the case, as such the learned Single Judge rightly
D     entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
      and rightly exercised the jurisdiction under Article 226 and rightly quashed
      and set aside the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court
      on the ground that before enhancing the amount of compensation, the
      appellant was not heard. It is submitted that as such the learned Single
E     Judge of the High Court remanded the matter to the Reference Court to
      decide the references afresh after giving an opportunity to the appellant.
      It is submitted that, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the
      case, the Division Bench ought not to have interfered with the order
      passed by the learned Single Judge.

F            4.3 Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
      of the appellant has relied upon the following decisions of this Court in
      support of his submission that in the facts and circumstances of the
      case, the appellant rightly invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under
      Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the learned Single Judge
      rightly entertained the writ petition under Article 226 challenging the
G     judgment and award passed by the Reference Court and the learned
      Single Judge rightly set aside the award passed by the Reference Court
      in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:-
            (a)     N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal
                    Constituency, Namakkal Salem District and Four
H                   Others, AIR 1952 SC 64;
  SHRACHI BURDWAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED v.                                  933
   THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       (b)    State of U.P. Vs. Mohammad Nooh, 1958 SCR 595;                     A
       (c)    Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks,
              Mumbai and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 1;
       (d)    Harbanslal Sahnia and Anr. Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.
              and Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 107;
                                                                                 B
       (e)    Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd. Vs. Special
              Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Neyvely and Ors., (1995)
              1 SCC 221; and
       (f)    U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi (Dead)
              by LRs. And Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 326.                                C
       5. Present appeal is opposed by Ms. Kiran Suri, learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the original landowners. It is vehemently
submitted on behalf of the original land owners that in the facts and
circumstances of the case the Division Bench of the High Court has
rightly held that the writ petition before the learned Single Judge              D
challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court
was not maintainable and/or was not required to be entertained,
particularly, in view of the fact that even the four appeals against the
judgment and award passed by the Reference Court were pending before
the High Court at the instance of BDA.
                                                                                 E
       5.1 It is submitted that as such the appellant company cannot be
said to be the beneficiary of the acquisition under Part II of the Land
Acquisition Act and, therefore, cannot be said to be an ‘interested person’
under Section 3(b), 9, 11, 20(b) read with Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act.
                                                                                 F
       5.2 It is submitted that even the writ petition under Article 226 by
the company was not maintainable to challenge the Reference Court’s
award under Section 26 of the Act. Reliance is placed upon the decision
of this Court in the case of Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead) by
Legal Representatives and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr.,
(2015) 10 SCC 469. It is submitted that as such the appellant company            G
has no right to file the present appeal under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act as they are not person aggrieved in this case. It is submitted
that the appellant company cannot be said to be either interested or
proper party and has no locus to be heard. It is submitted that the land
has been acquired for public purpose at public expenses for HISDC. It
                                                                                 H
934            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 13 S.C.R.


A     is submitted that the land has been allotted to BDA and the allottee
      company cannot be said to be a person interested under Section 3(b) of
      the Act and have no right to be heard. Reliance is placed upon Satish
      Kumar Gupta and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (2017) 4
      SCC 760 and Hindu Kanya Maha Vidyalaya, Jind and Anr. Vs.
      Municipal Committee, Jind and Ors., (1988) Supp. SCC 719.
B
             5.3 It is further submitted by Ms. Suri, learned senior counsel
      appearing on behalf of the claimants that the decisions cited on behalf of
      the appellant in the cases of Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd.
      Vs. Francis Victor Countinho (Dead) by LRs., (1980) 3 SCC 223;
      Neelagangabai and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., AIR
C     1990 SC 1321; and Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd. (supra) shall
      not be applicable to the facts of the case as all the aforesaid decisions
      relate to acquisition for accompany under Part – VII of the Act and the
      respective companies were the beneficiaries. Making aforesaid
      submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the Civil Appeal No.5856 of 2021.
D            5.4 Now, sofaras the Civil Appeal Nos.5857-5880 of 2021 arising
      out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned
      Single Judge of the High Court dated 26.02.2020 in C.O. No. 1232 of
      2018 and other allied revision applications are concerned, it is vehemently
      submitted by Ms. Suri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
E     original landowners- claimants that the impugned common judgment and
      order passed by the High Court is absolutely unsustainable and not tenable
      at law.
              5.5 It is vehemently submitted by Ms. Suri, learned senior counsel
      that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge
F     is just contrary to the decision of the Division Bench dated 11.09.2019 in
      FMA No.887 of 2019 arising out of judgment passed by the learned
      Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012. It is submitted that
      before the Executing Court and before the learned Single Judge, the
      Shrachi Burdwan Developers Private Limited- the original revisionist
      relied upon the decision of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.
G     9778(W) of 2012 and claimed to be the person interested under Section
      3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act and on that ground sought an
      impleadment in the execution petitions.
            5.6 It is submitted that despite the fact that the learned Single
      Judge was made aware of the decision of the Division Bench in FMA
H
  SHRACHI BURDWAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED v.                                 935
   THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

No.887 of 2019, by the impugned judgment and order the High Court               A
has set aside the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court.
It is submitted that as such even the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No. 9778(W) of 2012 remanded the matter to the Reference Court for
fresh decision. However, by the impugned judgment and order, the High
Court has not remanded the Reference to the Reference Court and,
                                                                                B
however, only has reserved the liberty in favour of the landowners to
make fresh reference under Section 18 of the Act. It is submitted that if
the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court is
sustained in that case there shall be number of complications including
the limitation period etc. It is submitted that in any case, Shrachi Burdwan,
the appellant herein, cannot be said to be a ‘person interested’ under          C
Section 3(b) of the Act in view of the submissions on behalf of the
landowners recorded hereinabove.
      6. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of BDA has supported the submissions made on behalf of the Shrachi
Burdwan, the appellant, however, he is not disputing that the four appeals      D
preferred by the BDA challenging the judgment and award passed by
the Reference Court are pending before the High Court.
      7. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length.
       8. So far as Civil Appeal No.5856 of 2021 is concerned, Shrachi
Burdwan filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of          E
India for the reliefs referred to hereinabove and more particularly,
challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court
enhancing the amount of compensation. The appellant herein, Shrachi
Burdwan was not a party to the Reference proceedings. The locus of
the appellant – Shrachi Burdwan has been seriously disputed on behalf           F
of the landowners/claimants and it is seriously disputed whether the
appellant - Shrachi Burdwan can be said to be a ‘person interested’
within the definition of Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is
also required to be noted that as such out of 24 Reference cases, before
the High Court in Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012, the appellant
restricted the prayer with respect to only four respondents namely 6, 16,       G
17 and 25 in the writ petition. As observed hereinabove, at the instance
of the BDA four appeals challenging the judgment and award passed by
the Reference Court are pending before the High Court. Therefore, in
the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly when the
locus of the appellant, Shrachi Burdwan to challenge the judgment and           H
936             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 13 S.C.R.


A     award passed by the Reference Court is seriously disputed and whether
      the appellant, Shrachi Burdwan can be said to be a ‘person interested’
      within the definition of Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act and
      thereby the appellant can challenge the judgment and award passed by
      the Reference Court enhancing the compensation are all disputed questions
      of facts and are all contentious issues, we are of the opinion that learned
B
      Single Judge of the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ
      petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and ought not to
      have set aside the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court
      enhancing the amount of compensation under the provisions of the Land
      Acquisition Act. The remedy available to the appellant would have been
C     to prefer appeal before the High Court with application for leave to
      appeal.
              9. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in view of the
      judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court, now, nothing
      remains to be done in the appeals preferred by the BDA challenging the
D     judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, which was set
      aside by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, in the facts and
      circumstances of the case, the High Court ought not to have entertained
      the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging
      the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. The question
      is not about maintainability of the writ petition. The question is with respect
E     to the entertainability of the writ petition and for the reasons stated above,
      we are of the firm opinion that the High Court ought not to have
      entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
      challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court,
      more particularly, when the appellant would have a remedy to file the
F     appeal under Section 54 with the leave of the Court and if at all the
      Appellate Court – High Court grants leave to prefer the appeal
      challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court.
             10. None of the judgments/decisions relied upon by the learned
      senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant on maintainability of
G     the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be
      applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
            11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
      impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court IN FMA No.
      887 of 2019 is not required to be interfered by this Court. The Division
H     Bench of the High Court has also reserved liberty in favour of the
  SHRACHI BURDWAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED v.                             937
   THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

appellant to pursue whatever other remedies may be available to them        A
in accordance with law, which may be including to prefer the appeal
before the High Court challenging the judgment and award passed by
the Reference Court provided the leave to appeal is granted by the High
Court – Appellate Court.
       12. So far as the Civil Appeal Nos. 5857-5880 of 2021 are            B
concerned, they arise out of the impugned judgment and order passed
by the learned Single Judge of the High Court quashing and setting aside
the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court passed in 24
References. It is to be noted that the revisions before the High Court
were arising out of the order passed by the Executing Court and though
the Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012 was restricted to only four           C
respondents as observed hereinabove and so observed in the judgment
and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9778(W)
of 2012, by the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge
of the High Court has set aside the judgment and award passed by the
Reference Court in 24 References.                                           D
       13. Even otherwise, the impugned judgment and order passed by
the learned Single Judge is not sustainable and it is untenable at law.
Before the Executing Court and even before the High Court, the appellant
company – Shrachi Burdwan heavily relied upon the judgment and order
passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012 and           E
prayed to implead them as a party, which as such was set aside by the
Division Bench and even special leave petition against the judgment and
order passed by the Division Bench was pending before this Court.
Therefore, once the judgment and order passed by the learned Single
Judge in Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012 was set aside by the Division
Bench, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court             F
taking a contrary view can be said to be in teeth of the judgment and
order passed by the learned Division Bench. The learned Single Judge
of the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order has
not maintained the judicial discipline and has passed the judgment and
order just contrary to the order passed by the Division Bench. The          G
order passed by the Division Bench was binding on the learned Single
Judge.
       14. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that even while
passing the judgment and order in Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012,
the learned Single Judge remanded the matter to the Reference Court         H
938             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 13 S.C.R.


A     for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity to Shrachi Burdwan,
      the appellant herein (which as such has been set aside by the Division
      Bench and confirmed by this Court today) and despite the same by the
      impugned judgment and order in revision applications, the learned Single
      Judge has set aside the judgment and award passed by the Reference
      Court in all the 24 cases and not remanded the matter to the Reference
B
      Court but has observed that it will be open for the original landowners to
      initiate fresh proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
      impleading Shrachi Burdwan - the appellant as a party. Learned Single
      Judge has not appreciated that to initiate fresh proceedings under Section
      18 of the Land Acquisition Act now would create so many problems
C     including the question of limitation etc. In any case, even such an order
      reserving liberty in favour of the land losers to initiate fresh process
      under Section 18 is also just contrary to the decision of the learned Single
      Judge in Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012 by which the learned Single
      Judge remanded the matter to the Reference Court for fresh decision.
      Of course, as observed hereinabove, the order passed by the learned
D
      Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9778(W) of 2012 has been set aside by
      the Division Bench.
              15. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove,
      Civil Appeal No. 5856 of 2021 stands dismissed. However, it is observed
      that it will be open for the appellant – Shrachi Burdwan Developers
E     Private Limited to pursue whatever other remedies may be available to
      them in accordance with law, which may be including the filing of appeal
      under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, however, subject to the
      leave to appeal granted by the High Court for which the appellant has to
      file a proper application for leave to appeal and satisfy the High Court
F     that the appellant company can be said to be a ‘person interested’ under
      Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act and that the appellant has a
      locus to prefer appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. It
      will be open for the landowners to challenge the locus of the appellant -
      Shrachi Burdwan Developers Private Limited, as a ‘person interested’
      within the definition of Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act and to
G     contend that the appellant has no locus to challenge the judgment and
      award passed by the Reference Court. All the aforesaid questions are
      kept open to be considered by the High Court as and when any such
      application is preferred alongwith the appeals. It is made clear that this
      Court has not expressed anything on merits in favour of either parties on
H
  SHRACHI BURDWAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED v.                                  939
   THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

the aforesaid. With above observations and clarifications Civil Appeal           A
No. 5856 of 2021 stands dismissed.
       16. Now, so far as Civil Appeal Nos. 5857-5880 of 2021 are
concerned, in view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all
these appeals are allowed. Impugned common judgment and order passed
by the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 26.02.2020 passed            B
in C.O. No. 1232 of 2018 and other allied revision applications are hereby
quashed and set aside and the proceedings before the Executing Court
are restored and the learned Executing Court is directed to proceed
further with the execution petitions, subject to any stay granted by the
Appellate Court, if any, and of course, subject to the further order that
may be passed by the High Court in the applications for leave to appeal/         C
the appeals to be preferred by Shrachi Burdwan Developers Private
Limited, the appellant herein, as observed hereinabove.
       In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order
as to costs.
                                                                                 D
       Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.


Devika Gujral                                             Appeals disposed of.


                                                                                 E




                                                                                 F




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H