The beneficiary of land acquisition must be included as a party in proceedings to ensure effective adjudication of compensation claims, upholding principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J.

This Miscellaneous Second appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 10.07.2020 in R.A.No.10/2020 passed by VI Additional District & Sessions Judge at Tumakuru, and judgment and award dated 17.12.2011 in LAC.No.16/2006 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi, seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Heard the argument of learned counsel from both side and perused the records.

3. It is the case of the claimant that the claimant is the absolute owner of the land bearing Survey No.47/1A2, measuring 20 guntas, consisting of standing trees thereon, situated at C.Nandihalli village, Chelur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk.

4. The relevant details of the compensation awarded to the claimant are as under:

5. Being aggrieved by inadequate compensation, reference was made under Section 18(1) of the Act and the Reference Court has awarded compensation of Rs.16,000/- for 20 guntas of land and Rs.63,750/- for five tamarind trees (Rs.12,750/-for each tamarind tree).

6. Upon appeal before the first Appellate Court, the compensation for the land was enhanced to Rs.4,781/- per gunta in respect of 20 guntas of land and enhancement of compensation in respect of tamarind trees was rejected.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded by both the Courts below are on the lower side. He referred to the judgment in various other cases passed by the Reference Court, First Appellate Court and by this Court in respect of the very same project and prays for enhancement of compensation. Therefore, he submitted that in the present case also, the appellant/claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation on the ground of parity.

8. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No.2-Cauveri Neeravari Nigam Limited submitted that second respondent is the beneficiary of the land acquisition, but it was not made a party both in the Reference Court as well as First Appellate Court and second respondent was deprived of taking contention before both the Courts below. Therefore, he opposed the enhancement of compensation by contending that compensation is to be assessed on the basis of nature of soil, situation of land, distance between nearest town or city, whether the land is abutting to any highway or situated at distance from the highway, whether highway is a state highway or national highway or district road, what are the ages of trees situated on the land, how much quantity of trees are fruit bearing etc. are to be adduced in evidence and then only a determination of proper compensation would be arrived at. But the second respondent who was not a party before the courts below was straightaway impleaded as a party in this appeal. Therefore, he prayed for remanding the matter to the Reference Court so as to enable second respondent to cross-examine the witnesses of the claimant and also to adduce evidence.

9. Upon hearing the rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration are as follows:

i. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the second respondent who is a beneficiary of the land acquisition is a necessary and proper party before the Reference Court in the land acquisition proceedings?

ii. What orders?

10. The land owner is claiming that she is the owner of the land and her land was acquired for Hemavathi Canal Project. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the first respondent-the SLAO, the claimant made the application under Section 18(1) of the Act and SLAO referred the case to the Reference Court. The claimant has prose