RAJESH SHANKAR,J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the judgment dated 19th August, 2005 passed by the learned Sub Judge-II, Hazaribagh in Land Ref. Case Nos.568 and 569 of 1992 and also for quashing the award made in pursuance thereof under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). It has further been prayed for issuance of a direction upon the learned court below to pass a fresh order/judgment after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner for whom the land was acquired.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Government Company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. The lands, pertaining to Khata No. 110, Plot No. 781, measuring 2.97 acres; and Khata No. 97, Plot Nos.815, 822, 824, 827 and 835, measuring 6.94 acres, situated at village Sondiha were acquired by the State Government for the use and purpose of the Central Coalfields Limited (the petitioner herein). The Land Acquisition Officer notified the proceeding under Section 4 of the Act and it was lastly published in local gazette of Hazaribagh on 1st February, 1989. Thereafter, the acquisition proceeding started and the Collector at his own level assessed the market value of the said land at Rs. 74,250/- and Rs. 1,73,500/-, respectively. The said awarded amount was deposited by the petitioner in the office of the District Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh for payment to the land losers/awardees. Since the awardees were not satisfied with the market rate so determined, they filed objections, claiming to enhance compensation besides solatium and other statutory benefits. The said objections were referred by the Collector under Section 18 of the Act before the learned Court below for re-fixation of the compensation amount in accordance with law, which were registered as Land Reference Case Nos.568 and 569 of 1992. Thereafter, notices were issued to the awardees and the State Government. Learned Government Pleader accepted the notice on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. However, no notice was issued to the petitioner nor it was impleaded as a party in the said proceeding, though the land was acquired for the petitioner and the burden of payment of compensation was also on the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide judgment dated 19th August, 2005 the learned court below after hearing the claimants/awardees and the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh enhanced and fixed the market value of the acquired land in Land Ref. Case Nos.568 & 569 of 1992 to Rs. 2,520/- per decimal besides the statutory benefits of solatium, interest etc., as contained under the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not at all aware of the judgment dated 19th August, 2005. The petitioner neither received any notice nor any information was given to it. Thereafter, in pursuance of the said judgment dated 19th August, 2005, separate awards were prepared and published.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a similar writ petition filed by the petitioner, being W.P.(C) No. 3418 of 2006, a Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 24th June, 2010 allowed the writ petition of the petitioner, primarily for the reason that prior to passing of the impugned judgment and award, enhancing the compensation, the petitioner was impleaded as party nor was given any notice in the land acquisition reference case. In the said case, this Court, relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neelagangabai and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., reported in AIR 1990 SC 1321 , has held as under:- "Admittedly the land was acquired for the purpose of the respondent-Corporation and the burden of payment of the compensation is on the Corporation. In this background the High Court has held that it was mandatory for the court of reference to have caused a notice served on the respondent-Corporation before proceeding to determine the compensation claim. Since no notice was given to the respondent-Corporation and it was thus deprived of an opportunity to place its case before the court, the judgment rendered in the reference case was illegal and binding on the Corporation. We are in agreement with this view. section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act as applicable to the State of Karnataka reads as follows 20. Service of notice.- The court shall thereupon cause a notice, specifying the day on which the court will proceed to determine the reference and directing their appearance before the Court on that day, to be served on the following persons, namely:- (a) the Deputy Commissioner; (b) all persons interested in the reference; and (c) if the acquisition is made for Government, the person or authority for whom it is made. In view of the clear language used in clause (c) of Section 20, mentioned above, there cannot be any doubt that the respondent-Corporation was entitled to be heard before the reference could be determined. The High Court has also relied upon the decision in Himalayan Tiles and Marbles (P) Ltd. v. Francis Victor Coutinho (dead) by Lrs. (1980)3 SCR 235: (AIR 1980 SC 1118) , wherein the expression "person interested" was interpreted liberally so as to include an authority like the Corporation in the present case, but in view of the further provision specifically mentioning in clause (c) the authority for whom the acquisition is made it is necessary to interpret clause (b) of Section 20 in the present appeal. We accordingly confirm the direction of the High Court as contained in the impugned judgment that the Principal Civil Judge, Hubli, should re-open the proceedings in the L.A. Case No. 64 of 1979 and decide the matter afresh after giving the Corporation a chance to lead its evidence on the question of valuation. Since the matter is an old one, the respondent-Corporation is hereby directed to appear in the said case within 3 weeks from today without waiting for any further notice. The appeal is dismissed with costs.";