A has established a workshop with 100 workers. The state Governemnt acquired the land in which the workshop was situated and sent a notice, conducted enquiry and issued declaration. The workers union of A challenged the proceedings contended that they were also persons interested as employed in the workshop and loosing the employment and livelihood. Decide.
1. Whether the acquisition by state Government is valid? YES
2. Whether the workers fall under the 'interested persons'?NO
3. Whether the claim of workers' union is valid?NO
No compensation is ordered by the Act, except to persons interested in the land, on the mere ground that their earnings may be affected by the change of ownership.
This problem is related to the Who are not persons interested? Section 3(b): Persons interested: The expression 'person Interested' includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act, and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land.
Section 3(dd) : Who are not persons interested: A 'person is not a persons interested' within the meaning of the expression as defined, if he neither has an interest in the compensation nor claims such an interest. Persons who have no such interest, are not persons interested within the definition, even through their earnings may be affected by the change of ownership, or indeed, on any ground.
Secretary of state for India Vs. Shanmugaraya Mudaliar, ILR 16 Mad 369, it has been held that the quarry men, and others who work on the land for wages, are not persons interested.
Dyevs Vs. Metropolitan Boar of Works, (1877) 36 LT 277 (CA), the persons having an exclusive right to sell refreshments in a theatre, tenants whose tenancies have been determined by notice or efflux of time, even though they have a reasonable expectation of continuing in possession, or of obtaining a renewal of their lease cannot claim a share in the compensation, and are not the persons interested.
In the instant problem, the acquisition by State Government is valid. The workers do not fall under the expression 'interested persons'. Hence the claim of workers' union is not valid.
0 Comments: