GREGORY PATRAO & Ors. v. MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED & Ors.

12 S.C.R. 97 GREGORY PATRAO AND ORS. v. MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4105-4107 of 2022) JULY 11, 2022 [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.] Land Acquisition: Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act) – s.28 – Persons interested – Proper party – Right of subsequent allottee to participate in reference proceedings – The lands of the appellants were acquired u/s.28(4) of the KIAD Act for establishment of industrial areas – Land Acquisition Officer after affording opportunity of hearing to the owners of the land passed award on 06.10.2009 – References made to the Reference Court at the instance of landowners – Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation – Respondent No.1 (MRPL) was allotted the land as a lessee by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) – MRPL preferred the appeals before High Court on the ground that it ought to have been heard by the Reference Court as it was beneficiary of the acquisition and under the agreement between the KIADB and MRPL, MRPL has to pay the additional amount of compensation – High Court held that MRPL can be said to be a ‘person interested’ and therefore, ought to have been heard before enhancing the amount of compensation – The matter was remanded back to Reference Court for fresh decision after giving an opportunity of hearing to all parties including MRPL – On appeal, held: There is no reason to take a different view than the view taken in the case of *Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan v.

State of Karnataka that MRPL being a subsequent allottee after the land was acquired by KIADB, can neither be said to be a beneficiary nor a ‘person interested’ for the purpose of determination of compensation – The judgment and order passed by the High Court quashed. Constitution of India: Art.141 – Binding Precedent – Held: Not following the binding precedents of Supreme Court by the High Court is contrary to Art.141 of the Constitution of India. 97 97 A B C D E F G H 98 A B C D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 12 S.C.R. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD : The land has been acquired under the provisions of the KIAD Act, 1966 and the notification has been issued under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, 1966. The land has been acquired by the State Government for KIADB under three different notifications. After the lands were acquired, respondent No.1 – MRPL has been allotted the lands acquired as per the agreements between the KIADB and the MRPL. The present is not an acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore, as such, neither Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 nor any other provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall be applicable with respect to the lands acquired under the provisions of the KIAD Act, 1966.

There is no reason to take a different view than the view taken by this Court in the case of Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan that the MRPL being a subsequent allottee after the land was acquired by KIADB, can neither be said to be a beneficiary nor a “person interested” for the purpose of determination of compensation. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court taking a contrary view is unsustainable. [Paras 7, 7.6][106-F-H; 107-A-B; 115-D] *Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan v. State of Karnataka (2015) 10 SCC 469 : [2015] 9 SCR 498 – relied on.