ORDER :

S.N. Variava, J.

This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court dated 15th January, 1998.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:

3. Large track of lands were acquired for the purposes of constructing a Thermal Power Station at Kahalgaon in the State of Bihar. Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, 1710 References were filed. Out of this 704 References have already been decided. 1006 References are still pending. From the 704 References, which have already been decided, in 212 cases the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer has been confirmed. However, in 492 cases the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation. Out of 492 cases in which compensation has been enhanced the State has filed Appeals in 302 cases and no Appeals have been filed in 190 cases.

4. It must be mentioned that the Appellants, who are the body on whose behalf land has been acquired had made applications for being impleaded in two References. However, their applications for impleadment had been dismissed on 4th September, 1992 and 6th January, 1993 on the ground that they were neither necessary nor proper party.

5. The Appellants then filed a Writ Petition in the High Court claiming that they were necessary and proper parties in all References and that they should be impleaded in all Reference which were pending. They further claimed that Awards of the Reference Court by which compensation has been enhanced should be quashed and that those cases be referred back to the Reference Court with a direction that the Appellants be impleaded as a party.

6. A Learned Single Judge of the High Court, by his Judgment dated 28th April, 1995, held that in all the pending References i.e. the 1006 cases the Appellants were to be impleaded as a party if not already impleaded. It was further held that in 302 Appeals, which were pending before the High Court, the Appellants could make an application for being impleaded. The learned Single Judge opined that if such applications were made, they were bound to be allowed unless and until it was shown that the Appellants had notice of the Reference proceedings and were not prejudiced. The learned Single Judge further gave liberty to the Appellants to file Appeals in the remaining 190 cases in which the Reference Court had enhanced the compensation. The delay in filing Appeals was condoned. An Appeal against this order was dismissed by the Division Bench by the impugned Order dated 15th January, 1998.

7. The question which arises for consideration is whether the Appellants have a right to be impleaded in all References. This question is no longer res integra. The law is settled by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of U.P. Awas Evan Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi reported in (1995) 2 SCC 326. In that case, after considering various provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, it has been held that the body on whose behalf the land is acquired is not just a necessary party but is also a proper party before the Reference Court. It has been held that not giving them notice either at the stage of fixing compensation by the Collector or by the Reference Court affects their rights. It has been held that they must be impleaded as a party in the reference proceedings.

8. Thereafter, in the case of Abdul Rasak v. Kerala Water Authority, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 228, a Bench of this Court, relying on the above mentioned Judgment, has held that an Award given by Civil Court on reference stands vitiated for want of notice to the acquiring body. It has been held that as the acquiring body had to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings before the Civil Court from the very beginning, a re-trial becomes unavoidable. It has been held that in such cases the matters must be referred back to the Reference Court.

9. Again in the case of Kanak v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 693, the above mentioned position has been reiterated.

10. Mr. Sanyal, however, su