A subsequent allottee, MRPL, cannot be considered a 'person interested' for the purpose of determination of compensation under the KIAD Act, 1966, and the decisions in UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra) and Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. (supra) were not applicable to the acquisition under the KIAD Act, 1966.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in First Appeal No. 259 of 2021 and other allied first appeals, by which the High Court has set aside the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court and has remanded the matter to the Reference Court to decide the references afresh after affording an opportunity to all the parties including respondent No. 1 herein - M/s. Mangalore Refineries & Petrochemicals Ltd., Mangalore (MRPL), the original claimants / original landowners have preferred the present appeals.

2. The lands belonging to the original claimants/original landowners/appellants herein were acquired under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “KIAD Act, 1966”) under three different notifications. The lands were sought to be acquired for the development of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (hereinafter referred to as “KIADB”) for establishment of industrial areas. The Land Acquisition Officer after affording an opportunity of hearing to the owners of the land passed an award on 06.10.2009. At the instance of the landowners, the references were made to the Reference Court. The Reference Court vide judgment dated 29.07.2020 enhanced the amount of compensation.

2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court dated 29.07.2020, enhancing the amount of compensation, respondent No.1 herein – MRPL, who was allotted the land as a lessee by the KIADB, preferred the present appeals before the High Court and prayed for leave to appeal. It was the case on behalf of the MRPL that as the MRPL is the beneficiary of the acquisition and under the agreement between the KIADB and MRPL, the latter has to pay the additional amount of compensation and, therefore, the burden to pay the additional compensation would be upon the MRPL, therefore, MRPL ought to have been heard by the Reference Court. It was the case on behalf of the MPRL that MRPL can be said to be a “person interested”. Heavy reliance was placed upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. Vs. Francis Victor Countinho (Dead) By LRs', (1980) 3 SCC 223; UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi (Dead) by LRs. and Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 326; Neelagangabai & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others, (1990) 3 SCC 617; and Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd. Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Neyvely and Others, (1995) 1 SCC 221.

2.2 On the other hand, it was the case on behalf of the original owners that the MRPL, being an allottee from the KIADB and the beneficiary of the land acquisition proceedings is the KIADB and not the MRPL and the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was deposited by the KIADB, MRPL cannot be said to be a ‘person interested’. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan Vs. State of Karnataka, (2015) 10 SCC 469, it was prayed to dismiss the appeals.

2.3 By the impugned common judgment and order and mainly relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra), the High Court has granted the permission to MRPL to file the appeals challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court and thereafter has quashed and set aside the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court by holding that the MRPL can be said to be a “person interested” and therefore, ought to have been heard before enhancing the amount of compensation. Thereafter, the High Court has remanded the matter back to the Reference Court for a decision afresh after affording an opportunity to all the parties to adduce evidence including MRPL.

2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, the original claimants/original landowners have preferred the present appeals.

3. Shri Shailes