Shishir Kumar, J. - (1.) THIS first appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short the Act) dismissing the reference as not maintainable and it has been held that the claimant has no case for enhancement of compensation and the compensation awarded is strictly in conformity with the facts and law, therefore, the reference under Section 18 of the Act is hereby dismissed.
(2.) THE appeal was admitted and the paper book was prepared. When the matter was taken up before the Court for hearing, an objection has been raised on behalf of the Respondent that in view of the various judgments of this Court as well as the Apex Court, this appeal cannot be heard and held to be maintainable in view of the fact that the requiring body in whose favour the land has been acquired by the State Government, has not been impleaded as a party, therefore, this appeal itself is not maintainable and cannot be decided on merit due to non -joinder of necessary party.Sri Shrish Chandra, learned Counsel appearing for the State has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court reported in, (2004) 13 SCC 125 in the case of Regional Medical Research Centre, Tribals v. Gokaran and Ors. and on the case of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (Dead) by Lrs. And Ors. reported in : (1995) 2 SCC 326, and has placed reliance upon paras 21 and 24 which are quoted below: 21. We may now come to the stage of the proceedings before the Court in a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act made at the instance of a person having interest in the land being acquired. At this stage also Section 50(2) of the L.A. Act envisages that the local authority has a right to appear and adduce evidence before the Court. This right is independent of the right that is available to the local authority to appear and adduce evidence before the Collector. Even though the local authority had failed to appear before the Collector in spite of notice or had appeared in response to notice and had adduced evidence the local authority may consider it necessary to adduce evidence to rebut the evidence adduced by the person who has sought the reference and to defend the award made by the Collector. Failure to give notice at this stage would result in denial of the said right of the local authority. Before we consider the remedy that is available for seeking redress against the denial of this right we may examine whether the local authority has a right to be impleaded as a party in the proceedings before the reference Court. That raises the question whether the local authority can be regarded as necessary or a proper party. The law is well settled that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively and a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision of the question involved in the proceeding. (See Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, : 1963 Supp (1) SCR 676, at p. 681 : AIR 1963 SC 786 at p. 788)). A local authority for whom land is being acquired has a right to participate in the acquisition proceedings in the matter of determination of the amount of compensation while they are pending before the Collector and to adduce evidence in the said proceedings. While it is precluded from seeking a reference against the award of the Collector it can defend the award and oppose the enhancement of the amount of compensation sought before the reference Court by the person interested in the land. Moreover the local authority has a right to appear and adduce evidence before the reference Court. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that the presence of the local authority is necessary for the decision of the question involved in the proceedings before the reference Court and it is a proper party in the proceedings. The local authority is, therefore, entitled to be impleaded as a party in the proceedings before the reference Court. 24. To sum up, our conclusions are: 1. Section 50(2) of the L.A. Act confers on a local authority for whom land is being acquired a right to appear in the acquisition proceedings before the Collector and the reference Court and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. 2. The said right carries with it the right to be given adequate notice by the Collector as well as the reference Court before whom acquisition proceedings are pending of the date on which the matter of determination of compensation will be taken up. 3. The proviso to Section 50(2) only precludes a local authority from seeking a reference but it does not deprive the local authority which feels aggrieved by the determination of the amount of compensation by the Collector or by the reference Court to invoke the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution as well as the remedies available under the L.A. Act.
(3.) IN the event of denial of the right conferred by Section 50(2) on account of failure of the Collector to serve notice of the acquisition proceedings the local authority can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.;