Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs Trimbak s/o Mahadu Zambre (deceased L.Rs.)

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Mr.Sanjay Mundhe learned counsel for the appellant

submits that the appellant is acquiring body for the

benefit of whom the acquisition proceedings came to be

instituted by the State Government. He points out that

the compensation amount is actually required to be paid

by the appellant herein. He submits that notwithstanding

the mandate of Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894, the appellant was never impleaded as a party before

the Reference Court or given any opportunity to adduce

the evidence for the purpose of fixation of rate of the

compensation. He submits that since there is non-

compliance of this mandatory provision, the impugned

Judgment and award dated 27.4.1998 is required to be set

aside, the matter be remanded to the Reference Court for

fresh adjudication by afford of opportunity of adducing

evidence to the appellant herein. He relies on Agra

Development Authority Vs. Special Land Acquisition

Officer and others [AIR 2001 SC 992] and Delhi

Development Authority Vs. Bhola Nath Sharma [AIR 2011 SC

428] in support of his submissions.

Mr.A.M.Phule learned AGP supports the contention of

Mr.Sanjay Mundhe and also urges remand after setting

aside the impugned Judgment and award.

Mr.V.G.Kodale learned counsel, who holds for

Mr.V.D.Gunale leaned counsel submits the appellant was

thereby aware of the proceedings but did not seek any

impleadment before the Reference Court. He points out

that the enhancement awarded by the Reference Court is

well within the limits prescribed in the Government

Resolution dated 3.11.2016 as amended from time to time.

He submits that no portion of the enhancement

compensation has been paid to the respondents/claimants,

even though the execution of the Reference Court award

had never been stayed by this Court. He submits at this

point of time that almost after 20 years, an order of

remand will be quite harsh and therefore, the appeal

itself be dismissed in the interest of justice.

Upon due consideration of the rival contentions,

quite reluctantly the contention of Mr.V.G.Kodale will

have to be rejected and again quite reluctantly the

contentions of Mr.Sanjay Mundhe learned counsel and

Mr.A.M.Phule learned AGP will have to be accepted. This

is because there is no dispute that the appellant is the

acquiring body, which is ultimately required to pay the

compensation amount or the enhanced compensation amount.

There is really no dispute that the appellant is "person

interested" within the meaning assigned under Section

3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (said Act).

Section 50 of the said Act provides that where the

provisions of this Act are put in force for purpose of

acquiring land at the cost of any fund controlled or

managed by a local authority or any company, the charges

of and incidental to such acquisition shall be defrayed

from or by such fund or company. Sub- Section 2 of this

Section further provides that in any proceedings held

before the Collector or Court in such cases the local

authority or company concerned may appear and adduce

evidence for purpose of determining the amount of

compensation. The proviso makes it clear that no such

local authority or company shall be entitled to demand a

reference under Section 18 .

In Agra Development Authority (supra) Hon''ble

Supreme Court, after noticing that the appellant had not

been given any opportunity to adduce evidence for the

purpose of fixation of rate of compensation remetted the

matter to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for re-

fixing amount after giving notice. In Delhi

Development Authority (supra) the award of the Reference

Court was set aside and the matter was remitted to the

Reference Court for fresh adjudication after afford of

opportunity to the acquiring body.

Mr.Sanjay Mundhe learned counsel makes it clear that

the appellant will be satisfied if the impugned Judgment

and award made by the Reference Court is set aside and

the matter is remitted to the Reference Court for fresh

adjudication in time-bound manner. He as well as

Mr.A.M.Phule learned AGP assure this Court that they will

co-operate with the Reference Court for expeditious

disposal of the reference, should this Court consider a

remand with time-bound directions.

Taking into consideration the aforesaid position,

the impugned Judgment and award dated 27.4.1998 made by

the Reference Court is hereby set aside and the matter is

remanded to the concerned Reference Court for fresh

adjudication and disposal of L.A.R. No.242 of 1993 in

accordance with law and on its own merits.

The respondents/claimants as well as the State

Government is granted an option to either proceed on the

basis of evidence, which is already recorded or to lead

fresh evidence or to lead additional evidence. The

Reference Court has however, accord opportunity to the

appellant to adduce evidence after formally impleading

the appellant as a party to the reference proceedings.

Since, the impugned award is not set aside on merits

i.e. upon evaluation of the evidence already recorded, it

is made clear that all contentions of all parties are

kept expressly open for determination of the Reference

Court. The Reference Court is further directed to

dispose of the Reference Court as expeditiously as

possible and in any case within four months from the date

of production of authenticated copy of this order.

The parties/their representatives are directed to

remain present before the Reference Court on 5.3.2018 and

produce authenticated copy of this order.

All concerned, including the Reference Court to act

on the basis of authenticated copy of this order.

The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There

shall be no order as to costs.

Registry is directed to transmit the record and

proceedings to the concerned Reference Court forthwith

and in any case before 5.3.2018.

Civil application does not survive and the same is

disposed of.