STATE OF U P Vs. SHAU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. C. Mohapatra, J. An area of 414 acres of land in village Mukkarmpur Palehra within Meerut District by the side of Delhi Mussoori National Highway was acquired for Meerut Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as MDA) for Pallav Puram Housing Colony Scheme on basis of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') published on 12-7-1980. Acquired area belonged to various land owners. Land Acquisition Collector treating the acquired land to have potentials of Abadi (homestead) classified the same to two categories. Land adjacent to the National Highway covering about 2 kilometres in length upto 100 metres wide was valued at Rs. 30 pet square yard and rest land interior to it beyond 100 metres was valued at Rs. 11. 25 paise per sq. yd. land owners were claiming that entire area of 414 acres acquired is of the same category for which they are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 125 per sq. yd. Since compensation was offered at low rate, they requested the Land Acquisition Collector for reference under Section 18 of the Act and on that basis references were made to Civil Court.

(2.) ALL these references were heard in five sets. Learned Additional District Judge who heard three sets of references made awares under Section 26 of the Act on the same day. He held that acquired area involved in those two sets having potentials of homestead are to be divided into two belts and confirmed classification made by Land Acquisition Collector, Rate of land was, however, enhanced. Rate of Rs. 30 was enhanced to Rs. 70 per sq. yd. and rate of Rs. 11. 25 paise was enhanced to Rs. 37. 50 paise per sq. yard. In the fourth set decided by him on 5-9-90 the same rate was adopted. Another learned Judge who decided the last set on 13-12-1991, land involved in the reference were treated to be of one category and market value was determined at Rs. 70 per sq. yard.

(3.) MDA has preferred appeals jointly with State Government. There can be no dispute that their interest being the same both are competent to prefer appeals independently as well as jointly. However, when appeals are filed jointly, both of them are to be represented by one set of counsel engaged by both. There is no scope for two sets of counsel appearing independently, one for MDA and the other for State Government in the same appeal. Learned counsel for MDA has to get authority from State Government for representing it and learned Law Officer for State Government has to get authority from MDA to represent it as Government pleaders have no authority to represent statutory bodies under the Code of Civil Procedure unless specially engaged. If all these requirements are satisfied both counsel can appear for both parties. However, Law Officer of the State has right of pre-audience and there would not be scope to hear both sets of lawyers for joint appel lants separately. Thus joint appeal is incompetent, where learned counsel do not appear jointly for both the appellants. To avoid this infirmity, oppor tunity is to be given to appellants to choose one of them to be appellant to continue the appeal, If no step is taken to transpose one of the appellants as a respondent, appeal has to be dismissed against it and the appellant continuing the appeal has to bear the effect of the same.