The necessity of imp-leading the acquiring body as a party in the reference proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

This is an appeal against the judgement and decree dated 31-07-1995 passed by the District Judge, Tehri Garhwal in LAR NO.1 of 1991, Krishna Nand Joshi vs. State of U.P. & others.

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the land was acquired under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 10-31984 and notification under section 6 of the Act, was published in March 1985. The special Land Acquisition Officer, Tehri Garhwal has given award on 30-9-1985 by determining total amount of Rs. 9,69,420/-. The claimants sought reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation.

3. The short submission of the petitioner is that the Tehri Hydro Corporation has not been made party in the reference proceedings. The land has been acquired in public interest for the benefit of the petitioner. The petitioner is a necessary party as well as in reference. Under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is mandatory to imp-lead the acquiring body for whose benefit the land has been acquired.

4. The counsel for the respondent has submitted that although the State was a party to the proceedings but merely as the acquiring body has not been imp-leaded as a party, it will not affect the acquiring body as he has been heard.

5. A perusal of the order of reference shows that issue no.2 was decided against the appellant and the reference court has recorded a finding that any agency of the Government need not be Imp-leaded in such case.

6. In the case of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs, Gyan Devi reported in (1995) 2 SCC 326, it has been held that the local authority would be a person aggrieved who can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to assail the award.

7. Similar view has been taken in the case of Kanak & another Vs U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad reported in (2003) 7 Supreme Court Cases 693, where similar controversy came up for decision before the Apex Court, where the Apex Court, relying upon the judgement of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs Gyan Devi reported in (1995) 2 SCC 326, has held as under:

"32. It is not in doubt or dispute that no formal notice was served upon the respondent. A notice to a person, for whose benefit the land is acquired or who is responsible for payment of compensation amount, was mooted before the courts of law on the construction of Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act. It was held that sub-section (2) of Section 50 must be construed as conferring a right of notice on the local authority at the stage of determination of the amount of compensation before the Collector as well as the Reference Court. It is not in dispute that the respondent was not represented even before the Collector. In the aforementioned situation, this Court in Gyan Devi held :

'In other words the right conferred under Section 50(2) of the LA Act carries with it the right to be given adequate notice by the Collector as well as the Reference Court before whom the acquisition proceedings are pending of the date on which the matter of determination of the amount of compensation will be taken up. Service of such a notice, being necessary for effectuating the right conferred on the local authority under Section 50(2) of the LA Act, can, therefore, be regarded as an integral part of the said right and the failure to give such a notice would result in denial of the said right unless it can be shown that the local authority had knowledge about the pendency of the acquisition proceedings before the Collector or the Reference Court and has not suffered any prejudice on account of failure to give such notice.'

33. It is not correct to contend that by reason of non-service of notice the respondent was not prejudiced. The exception carried out by this Court in the matter of service of notice to the local authority is not only confined to its knowledge about the pendency of the acquisition proceedings before the Collector or the Reference Court