Palok Basu - (1.) THESE two civil revisions are being disposed of finally at the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties by this common judgment since questions of fact and law involved are identical and it is agreed that the time to be consumed for disposing of the interim matter may be the same which it may take to decide these on merits.
(2.) IT appears that some land was acquired by the State Government for the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'NTPC') in pursuance of the notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'). An award was made by the Special Land Acqusition Officer. IT has been averred that 80% compensation has been paid to the various tenure- holders by the NTPC. Dissatisfied with the award, a reference each was taken under section 18 of the Act before the District Judge by two tenure holders. On having come to know the making of the references, the NTPC filed an application for being impleaded as a party in each of the reference. It was claimed in the said application that since the applicant is a necessary and interested party it deserves to get an opportunity to contest the reference. Opposite party Jai Prakash's reference was numbered as LAR No. 56 of 1987 while that of the opposite party Mahesh Prakash's reference has been numbered as LAR No. 58 of 1987. The two applications on behalf of NTPC in both the cases were rejected on 21-4-1988 holding that since the land was acquired by the State, the third party i. e. the NTPC does not come into the picture as the matter will have to be settled between the claimant and the State. These two orders are under challenge in these two revisions. Sri Dinesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant has laid stress on the language of Section 18 of the Act and argues that since the compensation will have to be paid from out of the funds of the NTPC it has a right to be heard as a person interested. In support of his argument he has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Himalayan Tiles and Marbles (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Fancis Victor Countinbo, AIR 1980 SC 1118 which has been followed by a Division Bench decision of our Court in N. T. P. C. v. Raghunath Prasad, ALR 1981 Summary of Cases 82. He has further relied upon the language used in sections 53 and 54 in order to show that against the final order which may be passed by the Court in the reference, the NTPC shall have the right of appeal.
(3.) MR. Ravendra Rai and MR. V. M. Zaidi appearing for the opposite parties have stated that they do not propose to file a counter affidavit but they also relied upon the language of Section 18 and argued that since the dispute has to be primarily settled between the claimant and the State as regards the compensation payable for the land acquired, the NTPC should not be impleaded as a party. They have, however, not cited any authority. Not much scope is now available to take a view contrary to the one taken by the Division Bench:in the case of N.T.P.C. v. Raghunath Prasad (Supra) particularly because while laying down the said law, the Division Bench primarily relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Himalayan Tiles case (Supra).;