In these writ petitions, the grievance of the writ petitioners who happen to be the beneficiaries of land acquisition in question is against the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereafter “Act” for short) whereby the amount of compensation ultimately payable by the said beneficiaries has been enhanced without affording any opportunity of hearing to them.

2. After service of notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel, who resist these petitions on the ground that the petitioners have an alternate and equally efficacious remedy of statutory appeal and therefore, they should be relegated to the same. In support of their submissions although they banked upon certain decisions, which directly have not considered the questions that arise from these cases, as stated in the paragraph infra.

3. The following two questions arise for consideration of this Court in these matters:

“i) whether the beneficiaries of the acquisition of lands are entitled to be heard by the Reference Court in considering the reference matters, regardless of they being parties to the proceedings or not?; and

(ii) once, the reference court makes the judgment and award enhancing the compensation, whether the aggrieved can maintain a writ petition, the statutory appeal provision under Section 54 of the Act notwithstanding?”

4. Learned Senior Advocate, Sri. S.S.Naganand submits that the first question above being a pure question of law is answered by Section 20(2)(c) of the Karnataka Amendment to the Act; even otherwise also principles of natural justice mandate an opportunity of hearing since the compensation payable under the award made by the LAO/SLAO and the enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court are payable ultimately by the beneficiaries of acquisition, the State being only the acquiring body.

5. Learned Senior Advocate, Sri. Naganand submits that the second question as to nonsuiting of the petitioner on the ground of availability of an alternate and equally efficacious remedy by way of appeal under Section 54 of the Act again is no longer res integra having been already answered by the Apex Court in the case of M/s.Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd. v. Special Tahsildar (land Acquisition), Neyvely and others AIR 1995 SC 1004 holding that the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. He hastens to add that even otherwise also there has been a catena of decisions wherein the Apex Court has held that in Certiorari proceedings especially founded on the principles of natural justice, the availability of alternate remedy does not constitute a sole ground for declining to exercise the power of judicial review.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the opposing parties in these writ petitions in chorus submit that since disputed questions of facts are involved in these writ petitions, the parties be relegated to the appellate remedies that are statutorily available especially in the absence of any explanation by the petitioners for not availing the same. They further submit that on merits also, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed there being no error apparent on the face of the record warranting grant of writ remedy.

7. I have heard the learned Senior Advocate Sri.S.S.Naganand, appearing on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners on record and the learned counsel appearing for the opposing parties. I have perused the writ petition papers and the decisions cited at the Bar.

8. The contention of the learned Senior Advocate that the beneficiary of the acquisition of the land is entitled to be heard and that a duty is cast on the Reference Court to hear the beneficiary finds support from the text of Section 20(2)(c) of the Karnataka Amendment to the Act vide Mysore Act 17 of 1961 w.e.f. 24.08.1961, which reads as under:

“20. Service of notice – The Court shall thereupon cause a notice specifyi