JUDGMENT

A. K. PARICHHA, J. — This is an appeal by the State against the award passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Angul in L.A. Misc. Case No. 14 of 1998 in connection with land measuring A.0.42 decimals appertaining to Plot No.126/1610 and Khata No.117 of village Jamunda belonging to the respondents which was acquired for Talcher-Sambalpur Rail Link vide declara¬tion dated 5.3.1986 published in E.O.G. No.363 dated 31.3.1986. The Land Acquisition Zone Officer, Talcher-Sambalpr Rail Link after conducting an enquiry under Section 11 of the Land Acquisi¬tion Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) awarded a sum of Rs.4,460.74 paise for the acquired land and the trees standing thereon. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the respondents demanded reference of the matter to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act and consequently the matter came before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Angul in the above noted LA case.

2. To justify higher rate of compensation the claimant-respondents examined one witness and produced the certified copies of the judgment of the Land Acquisition Misc. Case Nos. 1 of 1990 and 144 of 1994 and the registered sale-deed No. 4870 dated 16.12.1982 which were marked as Exts. 1 to 3 respectively. The Land Acquisition Zone Officer (appellant-OP) did not examine any witness; but produced claim petition of the respondents which was marked as Ext. B. On the basis of these evidence and the surrounding circumstances, the learned Civil Judge estimated the market value of the acquired land at Rs.14,700/- and the standing trees at Rs.6,000/-. He directed payment of compensation accord¬ingly along with statutory benefits available under the Act. The said award is under challenge in this appeal.

3. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned award is vitiated for the simple reason that the Union of India, who is the beneficiary and is to pay the compensation ultimately was neither noticed nor given opportunity to participate in the proceeding before the referral Court. According to him, this was in clear violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 20 of the Act. In support of this submission, he relies on the cases Rajmani v. Collector, Raipur reported in (1996) 5 SCC 701, Neelagangabai and another v. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 1990 SC 1321, Bhikaraj Jaipuria v. Union of India reported in AIR 1962 SC 113 and State of U.P. and others v. Babu Ram Upadhya reported in AIR 1961 SC 751. Regarding the merit of the award, Mr. Das submits that the assessment of the referral Court of the market value of the land and the trees is founded on imagination and conjectures.

4. Though the respondents received notice and engaged counsel, no one is in attendance despite repeated calls.

5. At the outset, it is necessary to find out whether the learned referral Court failed to comply with the provision of Section 20 of the Act. Section 20 of the Act reads as under :

“20. Service of notice - The Court shall thereupon cause a notice, specifying the day on which the Court will proceed to determine the objection, and directing their appearance before the Court on that day, to be served on the following persons, namely :

(a) the applicant;

(b) all persons interested in the objection, except such (if any) of them as have consented without protest to receive payment of the compensation awarded; and

(c) if the objection is in regard to the area of the land or to the amount of the compensation, the Collector”

A plain reading of the aforesaid section shows that a duty has been cast on the Court concerned to issue notice to the applicant, all persons interested in the objection, except those who have consented without protest; and if the objection is re¬garding the area of the land or the amount of the compensation, the Collector also. In the Section the word ‘shall’ has been used. It has been clarified in the case of State of U.P. v. Babu