Lal Man vs State of U.P. <BR>Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Amroha Vs Mohan and Another <BR>K.U.M.S. Amroha Vs Ganga Ram and Others

Hon''ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—All the aforesaid appeals are connected with one another and involve identical question of law and, as such, with the consent of the parties are being heard and disposed of finally by a common judgment.

In appeals filed by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti the delay in filing the appeals was condoned vide order dated 10.3.2006 subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,500/- to the counsel for respondents. The cost has not been paid.

Let the cost be paid within two weeks.

All the appeals arise from a common judgment and order dated 1.1.1990 passed by the Reference Court whereby several references u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act were decided. The land was acquired by the State of U.P. for the benefit of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti. The notification u/s 4 of the Act was issued on 1.5.1987. The claimants/land owners were not satisfied by the compensation offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and, as such, several references u/s 18 were preferred. Some of those references were decided by the common impugned judgment and the compensation awarded has been enhanced. Not satisfied by the enhancement made by the Reference Court two appeals have been preferred by the claimants/owners of the land and the other seven by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti challenging the enhancement.

One of the main grounds which arise for consideration in this appeal is whether the Reference Court could have decided the reference in the absence of beneficiary i.e. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti for whom the land was acquired. Their Lordship of Supreme Court in AIR 1995 SC 224 U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi and others have clearly laid down that the beneficiary for whom the land is acquired may not be a necessary party but a property party and is entitle to be impleaded as a party in the reference proceedings so that it can defend and oppose the enhancement of the amount of compensation by adducing evidence in that regard.

In the aforesaid decision it has also been laid down that the beneficiary for whom the land is acquired even if not impleaded as a party in reference is entitle to file an appeal but with the leave of the Court.

In view of the above as the appeals of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti have been admitted it is deemed that it has been granted permission to appeal.

The opportunity of adducing evidence and of hearing to the beneficiary i.e. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti was clearly denied by the Reference Court in the present case.

In view of above decision, Sri B. Dayal, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents is at loss to justify the impugned judgment and order. Learned Standing Counsel and Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned counsel appearing for the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti submit that the matter be remanded to the Reference Court for decision afresh.

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned judgment and order dated 1.1.1990 of the Reference Court in so far parties herein are concerned is set aside and the matter is remanded for decision afresh in accordance with law after affording opportunity to all the parties to lead evidence, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.