- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. The Union of India and Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration filed this application for addition of the applicants as appellants in the appeal preferred by the State of U. P. against a judgment and decree passed on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act arising out of an-award. Admittedly, the land was acquired for the benefit of the applicants from whose fund the compensation is to be borne. Learned counsel for the applicant's Mr. Anil Kumar Bajpai holding the brief of Mr. U. N. Sharma contends that since the compensation is borne out of the funds of the applicant they are the persons interested in the award and, therefore, they have a right as well to be added as party as appellant in the appeal filed by the State through whom the land was acquired for the applicants' benefit. In support of his contention he has relied on the decision in the case of Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd v. Spl. Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Neyvely and others, AIR 1995 SC 1004.
(2.) MR. R. P. Goel learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that by reason of Section 50 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the applicants do not have any right to prefer an appeal though they might have right to appear and adduce evidence. According to him such appeal can be filed only with the leave of the Court by the appellant. He contends further that such leave cannot be granted because of the conduct of the applicants. He also contends that despite having the right to appear and adduce the evidence, the applicants have never chosen to appear and adduce evidence either before the Collector or the Court. On these grounds he has opposed the prayer of the applicant. In support Mr. R. P. Goel has placed reliance on the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Rambal, AIR 1991 SC 68. Learned Standing counsel contends that the appellant has no objections if the applicants are added as appellants. He also supports the contention of Mr. A. K. Bajpai.
(3.) AFTER having heard learned counsel for the parties it appears that it is an admitted fact that the land was acquired for the benefit of the applicants and that the compensation was payable out the funds of the applicants. Thus, it appears that the applicants are persons interested. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) enables a "person interested" to apply for reference. Section 50 (2) of the said Act provides right of appearance and adduce evidence in a proceedings before the Collector or before the Court to the local authority or the company concerned. In the present case it is the local authority who had such right under sub-Section (2) of Section 50. Though such right may not have been exercise either before the Collector or before the Court in the course of proceedings under reference under Section 18 yet the interest does not extinguish. It is the State or the Collector who furnishes the statement and represents interest of such beneficiaries as well. It cannot be said that the interest of such beneficiary is wholly unrepresented. The beneficiary may rely on the representation made through the State or also may come forward itself. In the case of Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd. the apex Court had held that the appeal against an order under reference under Section 18 is for all purposes an appeal within the meaning of Section 96 of the C. P. C. By reason of Section 53 the provisions of C. P. C. is applicable in all proceedings before the Court under the said Act and by reason of Section 54 the provision relating to the appeal provided in the Code of Civil Procedure is also attracted. The apex Court had held that the beneficiaries is also a necessary party and could also be added under Order 1, Rule 10 of the C. P. C. and denial of such right to a person interested is an infringement of fair and just procedure as provided under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was further held that even if the beneficiary is not made a party it is entitled to seek leave of the Court to file appeal against the decree of the Civil Court under Section 26 or of the judgment decree under Section 54 or is entitled to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and assail the legality and correctness of the order impugned. Therefore the right to prefer an appeal is recognised. In the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority this Court also had taken the same view that whosoever may be entitled to file an appeal under Section 96 of the C. P. C. against the judgment and decree has a right under Section 54 also to file an appeal against the Award. Under Section 96 of the C. P. C. any person who is aggrieved by a judgment and decree can prefer an appeal even if he is not a party. By leave of the Court an appeal will lie at the instance of the Corporation for whose benefit the proceedings has taken place under the Land Acquisition Act.;