Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Tumkur vs District Legal Services Authority, Tumkur and Others

K.R. Prasada Rao, J.-All these appeals are directed against the common order of the Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 26148 to 26163 of 1998, dated 31st July, 1999. The appellant-Agricultural Produce Market Committee (in short, ''APMC''), New Market Yard, Batawade, Tumkur, has challenged the awards passed by the District Legal Services Authority, Tumkur, in exercise of its powers under Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 before the learned Single Judge in the above writ petitions on the ground that the said awards are without notice to them and therefore, void ab initio. The State Government acquired 47 acres and 37 guntas of lands situate in Batawade Village, Tumkur Kasaba, belonging to the respondents-owners in exercise of its powers under the Land Acquisition Act for the benefit of the appellants on 15-4-1976 when Section 6(1) notification was issued. The awards were passed in favour of the respondents-claimants on 16-9-1976. Since the respondents were not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer (in short, ''the L.A.O.''), they made applications for referring the matter to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, references were made in the year 1979 to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the District Legal Services Authority, Tumkur. Before the said authority, the Land Acquisition Officer, Tumkur Sub-Division, Tumkur, as well as the respective claimants filed a joint memo in each one of the cases agreeing to enhance the market value at the rate of Rs. 53,500/- per acre and on that basis, an order/decree was passed by the District Legal Services Authority, Tumkur, fixing the market value of Rs. 53,500/- per acre in each one of the cases. But, in the said proceedings, the appellant-APMC for whose benefit the land in question was acquired was not made a party at all. The appellant was not made a party even before the District Legal Services Authority to whom the cases were referred for disposal. It is only on 6-2-1988 when the L.A.O. addressed a letter to the Market Committee to deposit the amount as per the joint decrees, the appellant-Market Committee came to know for the first time that the compensation was enhanced and fixed as per the Joint Memo filed by the L.A.O. and claimants, without notice to the appellant. The appellant, therefore, challenged the decrees passed in favour of the respondents-claimants contending that the said decrees are null and void, as they are not impleaded as parties to the said proceedings before the Civil Court and before the District Legal Services Authority, Tumkur. On a consideration of the objections filed by the respondents-claimants and on hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels appearing on both sides, the Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions by the impugned order passed taking the view that the appellant-APMC, must be deemed to have been represented by the Assistant Commissioner, who signed the Joint Memo filed before the District Legal Services Authority, while functioning as an Administrator of APMC, during the relevant period and it is to be taken that he has signed the said joint memo in dual capacity as Administrator of the appellant as well as the L.A.O. representing the State.

When all these appeals have come-up for preliminary hearing, the learned Counsels appearing for both parties have represented that these appeals may be disposed of at the stage of admission itself and submitted their final arguments.

Sri B.G. Sridharan, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the appellant-Market Committee must be deemed to have been represented by the Assistant Commissioner, who signed the joint memo since he was functioning as an Administrator during the relevant time, is clearly erroneous in view of the fact that the appellant-APMC is not made a party either to the Reference proceedings or to the proceedings before the District Legal Services Authority, Tumkur, as required under the mandatory provisions of Section 56 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 read with Rule 50 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1968 and since they had no opportunity to participate in the said proceeding and to submit their say in the matter. Repelling the said contention, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the Assistant Commissioner, who was functioning as an Administrator-APMC, New Market Yard, Batawade, Tumkur, acted in his dual capacity as L.A.O. and Administrator of APMC in signing the joint memo filed before the District Legal Services Authority and so the joint decrees passed in favour of the claimants are binding on the appellant. But, on a careful consideration of the matter, we find no merit in the above contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants. As admittedly, the land in dispute has been acquired by the State for the benefit of the appellant-APMC to establish a New Market Yard, the appellant is a necessary party to the Reference proceedings before the Reference Court of Civil Judge, Tumkur, and without impleading the said appellant/beneficiary as a party to the said proceedings and without giving opportunity of being heard to them the compensation could not have been enhanced to Rs. 53,500/- per acre which is more than seven-fold increase of what has been granted by the L.A.O. by accepting the joint memo filed by the L.A.O. and claimants before the District Legal Services Authority after the matter was referred to the said authority. The Assistant Commissioner could not have signed the joint memo filed before the District Legal Services Authority on behalf of the appellant-APMC as its Administrator when the appellant is not a party to the said proceedings before that authority. In fact, it is not disputed that the Assistant Commissioner, who signed it has signed it in his capacity as L.A.O. representing the State, but not as an Administrator of APMC, Tumkur and he has not put the seal of the APMC under his signature. In the circumstances, we are unable to understand how an inference can be drawn that he has signed the joint memo in his dual capacity, as sought to be contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants. Further, it is also an admitted fact that the Reference Court has not notified the appellant-APMC, who is the beneficiary, in respect of the lands acquired regarding reference applications filed by the claimants and the beneficiary was not a party to the reference applications. Therefore, having regard to Section 3(b) read with Section 20(c) of the Land Acquisition Act and the decision of the Supreme Court in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Inam Parishad v Gyan Devi (dead) by L.Rs, AIR 1995 SC 724, the awards passed in favour of the claimants/respondents by the District Legal Services Authority, to which the matters were referred on the basis of the joint memo filed by the L.A.O. and the claimants are void and are not binding on the appellant. We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the contrary view taken by the Single Judge is clearly erroneous.

All these appeals are, therefore, admitted and the impugned common order passed by the Single Judge is set aside and the matters are remanded to the Reference Court with a direction to restore all the reference applications filed by the respondents-claimants to its original numbers and to dispose of the same afresh. On the oral request of the appellant-APMC, they are permitted to be impleaded as parties to the Reference Proceedings as additional respondents by suitably amending the cause title. The Reference Court is directed to decide the reference applications afresh after giving opportunity to the impleaded party-APMC, New Market Yard, Batawade, Tumkur, to file their objections and to contest the proceedings. We further direct that the Reference Court shall dispose of all the matters within six months from 14-8-2000, which is the date fixed for appearance of all the parties before the said Court. All the parties are directed to appear before the Reference Court on14-8-2000 without awaiting for any notice from the Reference Court. In the circumstances, we direct the parties to bear their respective costs.