BHIMASHANKAR CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY LIMITED Vs. SPL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ASST COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Sugar Factory. For its benefit certain lands belonging to respondents 2 to 6 had been acquired. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition officer, the owners sought reference to Civil Court and by the impugned Judgment and Award the Reference Court enhanced the compensation. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed these Writ Petitions. The grievance of the petitioner is that it was not heard in the matter and hence the Judgment and Award are violative of principles of natural justice.

(2.) COUNSEL for the owners contends that against the award passed by the Reference Court, alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act and hence sought for dismissal of the Writ Petitions. The decision reported in HIMALAYAN tile AND MARBLE (Pvt) Ltd. v. FRANCIS V. COUTINHO, AIR1971 Bom 341 , (1970 )72 BOMLR910 is pressed into service to contend that the beneficiary is not entitled to seek to set aside the award passed under Section 18 of the Act.

(3.) THE contention urged by the learned Counsel for the owners cannot be accepted and the decision relied upon cannot be applied to the case on hand in view of the Constitutional Bench decision reported in 1995 (5) SC 724, wherein it is held that it is open for the beneficiary to invoke the jurisdiction either under Article 226 of the Constitution or avail the remedy provided under the Act.