- (1.) ALL the three appeals have been filed by the appellant-Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Khairthal, Alwar under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') against the common award made by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Kishangarhbas, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court') in Reference Nos.41/5-2004, 41/4-2004 and 41/11-2004 respectively.
(2.) AT the very outset, it may be stated that appellant-Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Khairthal, Alwar was not made party to the reference proceedings decided by the Reference Court and the appellant having sought permission to file present appeals under section 54 of the said Act, the said leave was granted by the court vide order dated 20.12.2011 in all the three appeals. The short facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the State Government had acquired the lands in question under the provisions contained under the said Act for the construction of new Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Khairthal, Alwar. On the completion of acquisition proceedings, the Land Acquisition Officer had passed the award on 21.4.1994 determining the compensation to be paid to the respondents-claimants. Being not satisfied with the said award, the respondents-claimants had filed reference petition under section 18 of the said Act on 27.6.1995 and therefore the matters were referred to the Reference Court. The Reference Court made the award on 25.8.2008 enhancing the compensation as mentioned therein. Being aggrieved by the said award, the appellant-Samiti has preferred the present appeals. It is sought to be submitted by learned counsel Mr. Indrajeet Singh for the appellant in all the three appeals that the appellant was not made party before the Reference Court and was not heard before passing the impugned award by the Reference Court. According to him, the State Government having not preferred the appeal, appellant was entitled to file the present appeals for which the leave has already been granted by this court. Relying upon the decision of the Apex court in the case of U.P.Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vs Gyan Devi (Dead) by L.Rs and another AIR 1995 SC 724, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant or for whom the land was acquired had right to appear in the acquisition proceedings before the Collector as well as in the reference proceedings before the Reference Court and also adduce the evidence. However, the said right has been denied to the appellant and therefore,the impugned order deserves to be set aside. According to him, the reference itself was time barred and the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was not in accordance with law and therefore the matters deserve to be remanded to the Reference court for deciding afresh. However, learned Sr.counsel Mr. R.K.Agrawal for the respondents-claimants submitted that the appellant was not required to be made party in reference proceedings as the State Government was there to protect the interest of the appellant. Pressing into service the provisions contained in Section 50 of the said Act, Mr. Agrawal submitted that the appellant being neither local authority nor company was not entitled to appear and adduce evidence before the Reference Court. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties, it transpires that it is not disputed that the present appellant for whom the lands in question were acquired was not the party to the reference proceedings before the Reference Court. In this regard, a very pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in the case of U.P.Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vs Gyan Devi (Dead) by L.Rs and another (supra) are required to be reproduced, wherein it has been held as under: "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 above decision has also been followed by the Apex Court in the case of Abbdul Rasak and others vs Kerala Water Authority and others AIR 2002 SC 817. In view of the ratio laid down in the said judgment, there is no shadow of doubt that the present appellant being the party affected and for whom the lands were acquired, had right to appear and adduce the evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation before the Reference Court. In that view of the matter, without entering into the merits of the impugned award made by the Reference Court, the appeals are required to be allowed by setting aside the impugned award. Accordingly, the impugned award dated 25.8.2008 passed in Reference Nos.41/5-2004, 41/4-2004 and 41/11-2004 is set aside. The Reference Court is directed to decide the said reference afresh, in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the appellant to appear and lead evidence. The appeals stand allowed accordingly. ;