( 1 ) THESE two appeals of the Calcutta Metropolitan Development authority (CMDA) have been preferred against the Order dated 7th February, 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. R NO. 11615 of 1998 and W. P. No. 11616 (W) of 1998 arising out of L. R. A. Case No. 541 of 1993 (V) and 487 of 1993 (V) both dated 26th June, 1996. Since the grounds of challenge were identical, the two writ petitions were heard together and were disposed of by a common judgment. The two appeals, therefore, were also heard together. We propose to dispose of the same by a common judgment. The Facts :

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are summarized thus. For the benefit of the cmda, the lands were acquired by the State Government under the provisions of West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (1948 Act ). On a reference under Section 8 of the 1948 Act against the award passed under section 7 thereof, no notice of the reference, admittedly, was served upon the appellant (CMDA), the requiring body and person interested within the meaning of Section 2 (b) (2 ). The determination of the amount is alleged to be too high affecting the interest of the requiring body. Therefore, the award passed on reference is to be set aside and the reference be re-heard afresh after giving opportunity to the CMDA. Submission on behalf of the appellant :

( 3 ) MR. Das, appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that on a reference under Section 8 of the 1948 Act, it is incumbent on the Court to issue notice upon the person interested and as such non-service of notice, which is an admitted proposition, would render the award by the Court invalid and a nullity. According to him, by reason of Section 8 (2), the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act) contained in Sections 18 (2), 19-22, 25-28 have been made applicable. He relied on the decision in Neelagangabai and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. , AIR 1990 SC 1321 to support his contention that non-service of notice on the requiring body deprived it of an opportunity to place its case before the Court rendering the judgment of the reference Court illegal and not binding on the Corporation and that such a question can be raised through a proceedings under Article 226 of the constitution of India. Mr. Das then relied upon a decision in U. P. Awas Evam vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi and Anr. , AIR 1995 SC 724. Relying on this decision, he contended that the right under Section 50 (2) of the LA Act confers a right on the requiring body to appear in the acquisition proceedings before the Collector and the reference and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. The said right carries with it the right to be given adequate notice by the Collector as well as the reference court. It only precludes the requiring body from seeking a reference but it does not deprive the local authority, if it feels aggrieved by the determination of the compensation by the reference Court, of invoking the remedy available under the LA Act. Even, if notices have been served on the requiring body, the remedy under Article 226 would still be open to the requiring body to challenge the award on grounds permitting judicial review under Article 226. The requiring body is a proper party in a proceedings before the reference court and is entitled to be impleaded as a party wherein it can defend the determination and oppose the enhancement and adduce evidence in that regard. In case of enhancement by the reference Court if no appeal is filed by the Government, the local authority can file the appeal after obtaining leave of the Court. Mr. Das then relied on the decision in M/s. Neyvely Lignite corporation Ltd. v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neyvely and Ors. , AIR 1995 SC 1004 in order to support his contention that the requiring body is also a person interested. Relying on a decision in 12,1. C. Bose Road Tenants' association v. Collector of Howrah and Ors. , AIR 1977 Cal 437,