STATE OF U P Vs. COL JAI KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. The Union of India and Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration filed this application for addition of the applicants as appellants in the appeal preferred by the State of U. P. against a judgment and decree passed on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act arising out of an-award. Admittedly, the land was acquired for the benefit of the applicants from whose fund the compensation is to be borne. Learned counsel for the applicant's Mr. Anil Kumar Bajpai holding the brief of Mr. U. N. Sharma contends that since the compensation is borne out of the funds of the applicant they are the persons interested in the award and, therefore, they have a right as well to be added as party as appellant in the appeal filed by the State through whom the land was acquired for the applicants' benefit. In support of his contention he has relied on the decision in the case of Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd v. Spl. Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Neyvely and others, AIR 1995 SC 1004.

(2.) MR. R. P. Goel learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that by reason of Section 50 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the applicants do not have any right to prefer an appeal though they might have right to appear and adduce evidence. According to him such appeal can be filed only with the leave of the Court by the appellant. He contends further that such leave cannot be granted because of the conduct of the applicants. He also contends that despite having the right to appear and adduce the evidence, the applicants have never chosen to appear and adduce evidence either before the Collector or the Court. On these grounds he has opposed the prayer of the applicant.

(3.) AFTER having heard learned counsel for the parties it appears that it is an admitted fact that the land was acquired for the benefit of the applicants and that the compensation was payable out the funds of the applicants. Thus, it appears that the applicants are persons interested. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) enables a "person interested" to apply for reference. Section 50 (2) of the said Act provides right of appearance and adduce evidence in a proceedings before the Collector or before the Court to the local authority or the company concerned. In the present case it is the local authority who had such right under sub-Section (2) of Section 50. Though such right may not have been exercise either before the Collector or before the Court in the course of proceedings under reference under Section 18 yet the interest does not extinguish. It is the State or the Collector who furnishes the statement and represents interest of such beneficiaries as well. It cannot be said that the interest of such beneficiary is wholly unrepresented. The beneficiary may rely on the representation made through the State or also may come forward itself.