Non-impleadment of a party in land acquisition proceedings does not invalidate the determination of compensation, provided the party can still appeal and present evidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. Land measuring 60 kanals situated at Sharanso, Tehsil Dooru was acquired for the purpose of establishment of Walnut Processing Centre. The Collector determined the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per kanal, and accordingly awarded the compensation to the owners along with solatium at the rate of 15% vide his award dated 12.12.1981.

2. Some of the owners were not satisfied with the compensation awarded to them and, as such, approached the concerned Collector for making a reference in terms of Section 18 of the J&K Land Acquisition Act through the medium of application dated 08.07.1988 and accordingly, the Collector vide his order dated 17.08.1988 made a reference to the learned District Judge, Anantnag (for short ‘the Reference Court’).

3. The appellant admittedly was not a party to the reference and notice was issued to the Collector, Land Acquisition, PWD, Anantnag only. Response was filed by the Collector through Public Prosecutor. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Reference Court framed the following two issues:

1. Whether the interested persons had not been paid proper compensation and if so what should have been the reasonable compensation ? OPP.

2. Relief.

4. Respondent Nos. 2-23 besides examining one of the private respondents namely Gh. Ahmad Parray also examined Mohammad Yousuf, Ghulam Hassan and Amar Nath in support of their case, whereas the respondent No.1 did not lead any evidence. The learned Reference Court vide its judgment and decree dated 25.04.2000 disposed of the reference, by enhancing the compensation payable to the private respondents from Rs.7,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per kanal.

5. The appellant, being aggrieved of the judgement and decree dated 25.04.2000, sought leave of this court to file an appeal against the same, which was granted vide order dated 09.06.2014 and simultaneously, the delay in filing the appeal was also condoned.

Thereafter, respondent Nos. 2-23 also filed cross-objections.

6. The appellant has filed this appeal on the following grounds:

a. That the appellant was not impleaded as party-respondent in the reference and as such, the judgement and decree has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

b. That the respondents have received compensation for the land as per the market rate prevailing at the time of acquisition.

c. That the appellant will suffer huge loss, in case the decree is executed, as pay of its employees would not be disbursed for months altogether.

7. The respondent Nos. 2-23 in their cross-objections to the appeal have submitted that the learned Reference Court was not right in determining the compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per kanal, particularly when the learned Reference Court in its judgement has come to the conclusion that the private-respondents have succeeded in proving that the market value of the land was more than Rs.1 lac per kanal. It is also urged that even if someone amongst the respondent Nos. 2-23 may have claimed an amount of Rs. 20,000/ per kanal but that admission cannot bind the other respondents.

8. Mr. Furqan Yaqoob Sofi, learned GA, on behalf of the appellant has vehemently argued that appellant was not arrayed as party in the reference and as such, could not plead its case before the learned Reference Court therefore, the judgement and decree is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He has further submitted that the learned Reference Court has wrongly returned a finding that the respondents have produced evidence to demonstrate that the rate of land at the time of its acquisition was about Rs. 1 lac per kanal. He also argued that small stretch of land cannot be considered for the purpose of determining the market value of big chunk of land, more particularly when the sale exemplar is not proximate in time and situation to the land acquired under the land Acquisition Act. He has further stated that agreements to sell were manipulated by the private respondents and as such coul