- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted.
(2.) Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (in short 'the Corporation') being beneficiary had deposited the amount of compensation. Obviously, it could participate in the proceedings pertaining to the compensation. Thus, the High Court had erred in law in refusing the Corporation's leave to file an appeal against the Award passed by the Reference Court. Though the Corporation could not seek reference under Section 58 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as against the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Commissioner but could definitely prefer an appeal against the enhancement made by the Reference Court in the light of the decisions rendered by this Court in "Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. v. Francis Victor Coutinho (Dead) By Lrs." [1980) 3 SCC 223], "Neyvely Lignite Corporation Limited v. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) Neyvely and Ors." [(1995) 1 SCC 221], "U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (dead) by Lrs. and Ors." [(1995) 2 SCC 326], "Abdul Rasak and Ors. v. Kerala Water Authority and Ors." [(2002) 3 SCC 228], "Regional Medical Research Centre, Tribals v. Gokaran and Ors." [(2004) 13 SCC 125] and in the case of "Delhi Development Authority v. Bhola Nath Sharma (dead) by Lrs. and Ors." [(2011) 2 SCC 54].
(3.) As such, we set aside the order of the High Court and remit the matters to the High Court with request to adjudicate the matters on merits in accordance with law.;