STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. MAHARANI DURGA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. V. B. S. Negi, the learned Assistant Solicitor General for the applicant and Mr. S. K. Jain, the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The land was acquired by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act for the office of Soil Conservation and Survey of India. The Special Land Acquisition Officer offered some compensation in lieu of the land acquired. The State Government, being aggrieved by the said offer of compensation, made a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was duly decided, against which, the State of U.P. filed a First Appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed by a judgment dated 23rd April, 2007 and the cross appeal of the claimant was allowed and the award passed as by the District Judge under Section 18 of the Act was modified.

(3.) The Review Application has been filed by the Ministry of Environment and Forest through its Secretary, New Delhi alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act alleging therein that they are the beneficiaries of the acquisition proceedings and are necessary parties and, since they were not heard, the aforesaid judgment dated 23.04.2007 was liable to be reviewed. In support of this submission, Mr. V. B. S. Negi, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi 1995 (2) SCC 326, wherein the Supreme Court in paragraph 24 of the judgment indicated that the local authority in whose favour the land was being acquired had a right to appear in the acquisition proceedings before the Collector or before the reference court and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation and that the said local authority would invoke the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as avail the remedy available under the Land Acquisition Act. In the light of the said decision, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the review application filed at the behest of the beneficiary should be considered and should also be allowed.