The main legal point established is that the local authority has the right to participate in the compensation determination process and file an appeal without seeking leave of the Court if it is a party to the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Judge.

JUDGMENT

1. By means of this judgment, four appeals being L.A. Appeal 23 of 2008, L.A. Appeal 24 of 2008, L.A. Appeal 86 of 2008 and L.A. Appeal 87 of 2008 are being disposed of since they arise out of one award dated 30-05-2008 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge (L.A. Judge), West Tripura, Khowai in case No. Misc.(L.A.) 01 of 2008 and Misc.(L.A.) 02 of 2008 whereby he assessed the value of the land of the petitioners at Rs. 2,00,50,000/- per kani.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that vide notification published on 07-07-2006, 0.014 acres of land in Khowai town was acquired for purposes of construction of shopping complex at Subhas Park. It is not disputed that out of this 0.014 acres, .008 acres was owned by Smti. Mina Chakraborty and 0.006 acres by Rakhal Chandra Karmakar. Declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act) was issued on 11-08-2006 and the learned Land Acquisition Collector (L.A. Collector) assessed the compensation at Rs. 30,00,000/- per kani.

3. Aggrieved by the said award, the land owners filed petitions under section 18 of the L.A. Act. The petitions have been disposed of by a common judgment and the Land Acquisition Judge (L.A. Judge) has assessed the compensation at Rs. 2,00,50,000/- per kani. This award has now been challenged by the Executive Officer, Khowai Nagar Panchayat, Khowai in L.A. Appeal No. 23 of 2008 and L.A. Appeal No. 24 of 2008 and the land owners have claimed higher compensation in L.A. Appeal No. 86 of 2008 and L.A. Appeal No. 87 of 2008.

4. With regard to the appeals filed by the Khowai Nagar Panchayat, Sri Sankar Lodh, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents, has raised a preliminary objection that the appeals are not maintainable since no leave of the Court has been sought to file an appeal. In this behalf, Sri Lodh has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi and another, (AIR 1995 SC 724) in which the Apex Court held that when land is acquired for local authority or Company, the said local authority or Company has certain rights to appear before the Land Acquisition Collector and adduce evidence for determination of compensation. The conclusions of the Apex Court are contained in para-25 which reads as follows:-

"25. To sum up, our conclusions are:

1. Section 50(2) of the L.A. Act confers on a local authority for whom land is being acquired a right to appear in the acquisition proceedings before the Collector and the reference Court and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation.

2. The said right carries with it the right to be given adequate notice by the Collector as well as the reference Court before whom acquisition proceedings are pending of the date on which the matter of determination of compensation will be taken up.

3. The proviso to S. 50(2) only precludes a local authority from seeking a reference but it does not deprive the local authority which feels aggrieved by the determination of the amount of compensation by the Collector or by the reference Court to invoke the remedy under Art. 226 of the Constitution as well as the remedies available under the L.A. Act.

4. In the event of denial of the right conferred by S. 50(2) on account of failure of the Collector to serve notice of the acquisition proceedings the local authority can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

5. Even when notice has been served on the local authority the remedy under Art. 226 of the Constitution would be available to the local authority on grounds on which judicial review is permissible under Art. 226.

6. The local authority is a proper party in the proceedings before the reference Court and is entitled to be impleaded as a party in those proceedings wherein it can defend the determination of the amount of compensation by the Collector and oppose enhancement of the said amount and also adduce evidence in that regard.

7. In t