SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE appellant company approached learned Single Judge by filing writ petition against the action of respondents in raising demand for recovery of Rs. 25,43,343/- as an enhanced compensation to be paid to Nirmala Devi and Gulab Devi whose land was acquired by the respondents and allotted to the appellant Company. Learned Single Judge vide order dated March 5, 1999 dismissed the writ petition.
(2.) THE appellant company is, thus, before us. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The land was allotted by the respondents to the appellant company for raising factory by four allotment letters. The appellant company required 351 acres of land for this purpose. About 250 acres of land, owned by State was forthwith allotted by the first allotment letter dated March 10, 1981. Remaining 101 acres of land was allotted by acquisition from private persons and second, third and fourth allotment letters were issued. Two lease agreements were executed by the appellant company. The first was on Feb. 18, 1983 in respect of 250 acres and the second was executed on July 23, 1984 in respect of remaining 101 acres of land. The appellant company filed writ petition in relation to the land measuring 65 bighas which was in Khatedari of Gulab Devi and Nirmala Devi. The compensation of this land as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, was enhanced by the learned Civil Judge Alwar on reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondents then raised demand of enhanced compensation from the appellant company. The same was paid. On appeal, the amount of compensation was further enhanced by the High Court. Thereupon the respondents raised further demand of Rs. 25,43,343/- on the basis of order of the High Court. Feeling aggrieved by raising of this demand the appellant company filed the writ petition. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant company that since the appellant was never a party in any acquisition or enhancement or any other proceedings, it was incumbent on the respondents to implead it and to keep it aware of day to day development. It is further urged that opportunity of leading evidence was not provided to appellant company and the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC moved by appellant before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division Alwar (Reference Court) which was rejected on January 13, 1998. Learned counsel urged to set aside the order of Reference Court and the High Court placed reliance on Regional Medical Research Centre vs. Gokaran (2004) 3 SCC 125. We find no merit in the submission of learned counsel, Firstly the order dated January 13, 1998 of the Reference Court was not assailed by the appellant company and it had attained finality. Secondly, the appellant company never intended to adduce evidence before the Reference Court. If its application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was rejected, it could have sought the permission of the Reference Court to intervene in the matter under Order 1 Rule 8a of CPC or even it could assist the respondents in determining the compensation. Thirdly compensation enhanced by the Reference Court was paid by the appellant company after the demand of enhanced compensation was raised by the respondents and fourthly no such argument was advanced before the learned Single Judge and the argument appears to have abandoned.
(3.) IN the intra Court appeal the arguments which have been abandoned before the learned Single Judge, cannot be permitted to be raised. But even if we consider the submission, we notice that by executing the lease agreement dated July 23, 1984 the appellant company had agreed to pay in case of private land to be acquired the cost of acquisition plus 15% overhead charges. Clause 4 of the agreement reads as under:-      " 4. That the lesee agrees to pay the development charges in case of private land to be acquired at the rate of Rs. 5/- per square meter or the cost of acquisition plus 15% over head charges whichever is higher. " Learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment observed that "the amount of compensation" as determined by the High Court, is the final amount of compensation that is required to be paid to the private land owners in consideration for the acquisition. This amount is obviously, included in the expression "cost of acquisition" used in the agreement. Since the petitioner has agreed to pay it, it cannot have any grievance in the demand raised by the respondents as the result of enhancement of the compensation by the High Court. There is nothing wrong in the demand raised by the respondents. " We see no infirmity in the order of learned Single Judge. The compensation enhanced by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Alwar was paid by the appellant company without any hitch but further enhancement made by the High Court was objected to on filmsy grounds. ;