SWATANTER KUMAR, J. - (1.) DYAL Singh College Trust Society, Karnal, has preferred this regular first appeal against the award passed by the learned Reference Court dated 15.6.1994. They claim enhancement of the compensation awarded. It may be noticed that in this appeal cross-objections have been filed on behalf of Ajnala Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited, who was not a party to the reference before the learned Reference Court.
(2.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the objectors that they were necessary parties before the reference Court as they were beneficiaries of the acquisition as the land was acquired for their benefit. Thus, they were necessary parties and had a right to be heard before final award could be passed as they have to pay the compensation which is awarded by the learned Reference Court. While learned Counsel for the appellant conceded that the sale deeds produced by the appellant before the respondent could not be read in evidence for non-production of vendee and/or vendor. Thus, they are liable to be rendered inadmissible in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. P. Venkaiah and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2600 : JT 1997(5) SC 362 and Special Deputy Collector and another v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2625.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the State and even the other counsel fairly conceded that this is a fit case where the Court should remand the matter to the learned Reference Court for determination afresh in accordance with law. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Raj Kishore alias Sahu Jena and another, 1996(3) SCC 44, Ajnala Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited, Ajnala, was a necessary party and is entitled to be heard before the compensation is enhanced by the learned Reference Court. This court had the occasion to discuss this question in greater detail and after following the judgment of the Supreme Court it was held in the case of Union of India v. Dr. Balbir Singh, 1999(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 546 : 1999(2) PLR 613, that the beneficiary is a necessary party and has a right to be heard. The interest of justice demands that the appellant should be given a fair opportunity to prove his case because the sale deeds would be rendered inadmissible as a result of pronouncement of the Supreme Court which is subsequent to the recording of the evidence in the present case. Reference in this regard can also be made to the judgment of this court in the case of Union of India v. Puran Banti, 1999(2) RCR(Civil) 321 (P&H) : 1999(2) PLR 663.;