Executive Engineer vs State of Chhattisgarh, Land Acquisition Officer, Purushottam Sharma and Smt. Vandana Sharma

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the reference Court by order dated 30.01.2009 (Annexure P/1) has enhanced the compensation without affording an opportunity of hearing to the beneficiary i.e. the petitioner. The Constitution Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (Dead) by L.Rs. and Anr. in a similar case where without giving notice to the beneficiary, the reference court has considered the enhancement of the compensation, observed in para 21 as under:

In a case where no notice is given to the local authority the position of the local authority is not different from that of the Municipal Corporation in Neelagangabai and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others, . In that case there was an express provision in Section 20 of L.A. Act as modified by Land Acquisition (Mysore Extension Amendment) Act, 1961 providing for service of notice on the person or local authority for whom the acquisition is made. On a construction of Section 50(2) we have found that service of such notice is implicit in the right conferred u/s 50(2) of the L.A. Act,. Since the failure to give a notice would result in denial of the right conferred on the local authority u/s 50(2) it would be open to the local authority to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the award made by the Collector as was done in Neelganganbai case (supra). In a case where notice has been served on the local authority and it has appeared before the Collector the local authority may feel aggrieved on account of it being denied opportunity to adduce evidence or the evidence adduced by it having not been considered by the Collector while making the award or the award being vitiated by mala fides. Since the amount of the compensation is to be paid by the local authority and it has an interest in the determination of the said amount, which has been given recognition in Section 50(2) of the L.A. Act, the local authority would be a person aggrieved who can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to assail the award in spite of the proviso precluding the local authority from seeking a reference. Such a challenge will, however, be limited to the grounds on which judicial review is permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution. In a case where the local authority has failed to appear in spite of service of notice the local authority can have no cause for grievance. Even in such a case it may be permissible for the local authority to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to assail the award if it is vitiated by mala fides or is perverse.

Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act, 1894'') clearly provides that in any proceedings held before a Collector or Court in such cases the local authority or Company concerned may appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner is the beneficiary as the land has been acquired under the provisions of the Act, 1894 by the Government for the petitioner. The reference court, without issuing notice to the beneficiary i.e. the petitioner and affording an opportunity to appear and adduce evidence, has enhanced the compensation amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, many times.

Ms. Singhai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 and 4 submits in fairness that it is a fact that the compensation amount has been enhanced without affording an opportunity of hearing or to appear or adduce evidence to the beneficiary i.e. the petitioner.

In light of the above decision U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra), the impugned order is indefensible and cannot sustain.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.01.2009 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the reference court to consider the case afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner- beneficiary to appear and adduce evidences, if any.

Since the land of respondent No. 3 and 4 have been acquired three years back by the award dated 13.08.2007 (Annexure P/2), it is expedient that the matter shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months.

In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs.