Nanwa and Others vs State of U.P.

Shishir Kumar, J.—This first appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short the Act) dismissing the reference as not maintainable and it has been held that the claimant has no case for enhancement of compensation and the compensation awarded is strictly in conformity with the facts and law, therefore, the reference u/s 18 of the Act is hereby dismissed.

The appeal was admitted and the paper book was prepared. When the matter was taken up before the Court for hearing, an objection has been raised on behalf of the Respondent that in view of the various judgments of this Court as well as the Apex Court, this appeal cannot be heard and held to be maintainable in view of the fact that the requiring body in whose favour the land has been acquired by the State Government, has not been impleaded as a party, therefore, this appeal itself is not maintainable and cannot be decided on merit due to non-joinder of necessary party.

Sri Shrish Chandra, learned Counsel appearing for the State has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court reported in (2004) 13 SCC 125 in the case of Regional Medical Research Centre, Tribals v. Gokaran and Ors. and on the case of U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi (Dead) by L.Rs. and another, etc. etc., and has placed reliance upon paras 21 and 24 which are quoted below:

We may now come to the stage of the proceedings before the Court in a reference u/s 18 of the L.A. Act made at the instance of a person having interest in the land being acquired. At this stage also Section 50(2) of the L.A. Act envisages that the local authority has a right to appear and adduce evidence before the Court. This right is independent of the right that is available to the local authority to appear and adduce evidence before the Collector. Even though the local authority had failed to appear before the Collector in spite of notice or had appeared in response to notice and had adduced evidence the local authority may consider it necessary to adduce evidence to rebut the evidence adduced by the person who has sought the reference and to defend the award made by the Collector. Failure to give notice at this stage would result in denial of the said right of the local authority. Before we consider the remedy that is available for seeking redress against the denial of this right we may examine whether the local authority has a right to be impleaded as a party in the proceedings before the reference Court. That raises the question whether the local authority can be regarded as necessary or a proper party. The law is well settled that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively and a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision of the question involved in the proceeding. (See Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, A local authority for whom land is being acquired has a right to participate in the acquisition proceedings in the matter of determination of the amount of compensation while they are pending before the Collector and to adduce evidence in the said proceedings. While it is precluded from seeking a reference against the award of the Collector it can defend the award and oppose the enhancement of the amount of compensation sought before the reference Court by the person interested in the land. Moreover the local authority has a right to appear and adduce evidence before the reference Court. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that the presence of the local authority is necessary for the decision of the question involved in the proceedings before the reference Court and it is a proper party in the proceedings. The local authority is, therefore, entitled to be impleaded as a party in the proceedings before the reference Court.

To sum up, our conclusions are:

Section 50(2) of the L.A. Act confers on a local authority for whom land is being acquired a right to appear in the acquisition proceedings before the Collector and the reference Court and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation.

The said right carries with it the right to be given adequate notice by the Collector as well as the reference Court before whom acquisition proceedings are pending of the date on which the matter of determination of compensation will be taken up.

The proviso to Section 50(2) only precludes a local authority from seeking a reference but it does not deprive the local authority which feels aggrieved by the determination of the amount of compensation by the Collector or by the reference Court to invoke the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution as well as the remedies available under the L.A. Act.

In the event of denial of the right conferred by Section 50(2) on account of failure of the Collector to serve notice of the acquisition proceedings the local authority can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Even when notice has been served on the local authority the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution would be available to the local authority on grounds on which judicial review is permissible under Article 226.

The local authority is a proper party in the proceedings before the reference Court and is entitled to be impleaded as a party in those proceedings wherein it can defend the determination of the amount of compensation by the Collector and oppose enhancement of the said amount and also adduce evidence in that regard.

In the event of enhancement of the amount of compensation by the reference Court if the Government does not file an appeal the local authority can file an appeal against the award in the High Court after obtaining leave of the Court.

In an appeal by the person having an interest in land seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the reference Court, the local authority should be impleaded as a party and is entitled to be served notice of the said appeal. This would apply to an appeal in the High Court as well as in this Court.

Since a company for whom land is being acquired has the same right as a local authority u/s 50(2), whatever has been said with regard to a local authority would apply to a company too.

The matters which stand finally concluded will, however, not be reopened.

Further reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2010 (10) ADJ 31 (DB) in the case of Bulandshahr Khurja Development Authority v. Ajay Kumar. In such circumstances, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that no relief can be granted to the Appellant regarding enhancement of the compensation.

I have perused the judgments. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also placed reliance upon the judgment of Bulandshahr Khurja (Supra) and has placed reliance upon para 34 of the said judgment which is reproduced below:

The reliance has been placed on behalf of the Respondents on decision in Bhopendra Singh and Ors. v. Avas Vikas Parishad and Ors. 2005 (2) U.D. 295, wherein the division Bench of High Court of Uttaranchal, presided over by one of us (Honble P.C. Verma, J.) has observed that it would be injustice to the owner of the land if for realizing the stamp duty, we either apply the circle rate and deny at lease the said rate in making payment of compensation on acquisition of his land. The circle rate is not always the correct market value of the land and the parties are at liberty to show by means of a exemplar sale deed, the market value to be higher than the circle rate, but simultaneously, it is true that the Government, on one hand cannot charge stamp duty treating particular market value at circle rate and deny the same for making payment of compensation on acquisition of his land and therefore, market rate shown in the form of circle rate cannot be discarded, while assessing the market value of the land for the purpose of calculating the compensation of the land acquired.

Taking shelter of the aforesaid judgment, he has said that he is entitled for compensation at the circle rate. Admittedly the reference Court has not taken into consideration the said fact.

I have considered the submissions and perused the judgment of the Apex Court. The contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel has force in view of the Apex Court judgment that reference itself was not maintainable in view of the fact that requiring body has not been impleaded as a party to the proceeding before the Court below in the proceeding u/s 18 of the Act, therefore, the requiring body had no occasion to assail his claim whether the claim made by the land-holders needs enhancement or not.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of opinion that the matters need re-consideration and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court the order passed by the Reference Court can be set aside directing the Appellant to make application impleading the requiring body UPSIDC as a party and then the reference Court is directed to decide the same strictly on merit after giving full opportunity to the relevant parties. Therefore, order passed by the reference curt is hereby set aside and matter is remanded back to decide the matter as a fresh on merits.

It is made clear that as matter is very old and therefore, it may be decided within two months from the date of making the application u/s 18 impleading the requiring body UPSIDC as a party.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

No order is passed as to costs.