ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh High Court by a judgment and order dated January 24, 2023 rejected an appeal LA. App./11/2022 carried by the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon, Assam under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [2013 Act] from the judgment and award dated February 25, 2022 said award of the District Judge-cum-Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Nagaon in Ref. (LA) Case No. 1/2018. By the said award, the respondents 2 and 3 in these appeals were granted compensation in a sum of Rs.338 crore and odd in lieu of acquisition of 80+ bighas of land (54+ of the respondent no.2, and 26+ of the respondent no.3).

3. The ground on which the appeal of the Deputy Commissioner came to be dismissed is that the Deputy Commissioner did not have the locus standi to challenge the award. The learned Judge of the High Court clearly overlooked that the Deputy Commissioner was the respondent before the reference court and, therefore, clearly had the right to maintain the appeal being an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 74 of the 2013 Act.

4. There was one other appeal I.A. (Civil)/2788/2023 carried from the said award before the High Court by the Union of India [UoI], the Director General, Central Reserve Police Force [CRPF] and the Commandant, 34 Bn., CRPF. The said appeal, however, was dismissed as time-barred by a judgment and order dated January 30, 2024 by the High Court.

5. However, these appeals are not at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner but at the instance of the UoI, on behalf of the CRPF, pursuant to liberty granted by this Court by an order dated September 10, 2024 in SLP (Civil) No. 22083/2024. UoI is aggrieved because the entire liability of making payment of compensation of Rs.338 crore and odd is now foisted on the CRPF, which was not made a party to the proceedings before the reference court and, therefore, not put on notice, far less to speak of being heard.

6. We have heard Mr. Satya Darshi Sanjay, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant - UoI, Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 - Deputy Commissioner and Mr. Hareshwar Borah and Mrs. Madhumita Borah, respondents 2 and 3, respectively, who are appearing in-person.

7. We need not examine the merits of the challenge in depth having found that the UoI, which has filed this appeal on behalf of the CRPF (the beneficiary of the acquisition proceedings), was not heard in course of the proceedings before the reference court. Principles of natural justice, thus, have been observed in the breach.

8. It also appears from the records that the respondents 2 and 3 were initially found on August 2, 2016, by the Deputy Commissioner, entitled to a sum of little less than Rs. 10 crore [Rs.9,69,60,000/- to be precise]. Not having been extended any opportunity to contest the claim of the respondents 2 and 3 for payment of enhanced compensation before the reference court, the UoI, or for that matter the CRPF, could not oppose the astronomical increase in the quantum of compensation whereby Rs.338 crore and odd has been awarded as compensation without, however, looking into certain very relevant documents which include letters/representations addressed by the respondent no.2 dated September 2, 2013, August 28, 2015, September 24, 2015 and December 9, 2015. Having regard to the order that we propose to pass, it is again not considered necessary to refer to its content