The main legal point established in the judgment is that for an acquisition to be valid, the provisions of Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act and the Land Acquisition Companies Rules must be complied with. The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing 'person interested' status as required by the law for maintainability of appeals.

S. B. Sinha, J.

1. These two appeals under Sec.54 of the Land Acquisition act were heard together with the consent of the parties and are being disposed of by this common judgment. These appeals have arisen out of Reference Case Nos.4 and JO of the year 1983 made under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

2. Admittedly in the said reference cases, the appellants were not the parties, But these appeals have been preferred by them allegedly as being persons adversely affected by the judgment dated 7-9-1987 and the award dated 17-9-1987 on the ground that it has to pay the amount of enhanced compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Judge in the aforementioned two reference cases.

3. The appellants in the memo of appeal and or by way of a separate application had not brought on records the relevant and material facts for the purposf of determining as to how it is entitled to maintain the same, It. however, filed an application under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act and the learned counsel for the parties have made their submissions on the basis of the materials brought on record in the matter of condonation of delay.

4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in reply to the application filed on behalf of the appellant under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act, inter alia, the question of maintainability of the appeals was raised. By an order dated 21-3-1991 while allowing the application for condonation of delay, it was made clear that the court did not apply its mind to the question of maintainability of the appeal.

5. When the hearing of the appeals were taken up, Mr. N, N. Tiwary learned counsel for the appellants again raised the question of maintainability of the appeal and the said question has been allowed to be raised as a preliminary point.

6. The basic facts involved in these appeals are admitted, A notification dated 16-3-1980 was issued by the State of Bihar under Sec.4 of the Land acquisitiou Act, 1894 for acquisition of the land in-question for a public purpose, namely, for expension of Cuastic Soda Factory at the Government cost. Thereafter, a declaration under Sec.6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 16-8-1980.

7. According to the respondents, not only the acquisition was made for public purpose and at the expenses of the state, the requisition therefor was made by the Industries Department of the Government of Bihar. The amount of compensation was sanctioned by the State of Bihar and the delivery of possession was also obtained by the authorities of the State of Bihar.

8. It appears that notice under Sec.12 of the Land Acquisition Act was served upon the respondents on 18-11-1982. The respondents have further contended that an ante-dated instrument of lease dated 17-2-1985 was executed in the year 1987, whereby and where under the lands in-question were transfened in favour of the respondents.

9. The respondents have also filed a supplementary counter affidavit on 27-4-1991 and a reply thereto has been filed on behalf of the appellant on 7-5-1991. In the said supplementary affidavit, it has been contended that the acquisition was not made for the company at its costs nor any agreement was entered into by and between the appellant and the State Government before the publication of the preliminary notification under Sec.4 of the Act. It was further submitted that the agreement enteied to by the parties subsequent to the notification under Sec.4 of the agreement will be contrary to the provisions of Sec.39 thereof.

10. It was further submitted that even the purported deed of lease dated 17-7-1985 (Annexure-c) executed by the State of Bihar in favour of the appellant company had not been filed before the Land Acquisition Officer. It was further submitted that the Government itself is the major share-holder of the appellant company having 51% share therein.

11. The appeliant however, in its rejoinder to the said supplementary counter affidavit stated that it was formed and incorporated under t