MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THROUGH REGIONAL OFFICER Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER(I)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Government of Maharashtra had, by notice under Section 32 (2) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (for short, "the Industrial Development Act") sought to acquire agricultural lands from four different villages in Jalgaon District, namely, Manyar Khede, Kusumba Khurd, Khedi Buzark and Mehrun for the proposed Jalgaon Industrial area and the said notice was issued on 25.9.1980.

(2.) An award under Section 33 came to be passed by the Collector, Jalgaon on 30th May, 1998 and it was a common award for all the pieces of land under acquisition from these four villages. At the instance of some of the land owners, references were made under Section 34 (1) of the Industrial Development Act, for enhancement of compensation and these references, listed separately from time to time, were decided in the month of January 2001 by the court below and the compensation payable was enhanced to Rs. 35,000/per hectare. Though the present appellant i. e. the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, which is a creation of Industrial Development Act and an undertaking of the State of Maharashtra, it was not impleaded as a necessary party either before the Collector while passing the award under Section 33 or before the Court below in the reference under Section 34 of the Industrial Development Act.

(3.) A group of other appeals arising from the common award dated 30. 5.1986 and separate awards passed by Reference Court came to be decided by a common judgment dated 28th August, 2001, by a Single Bench of this Court (Vagyaji J. ). These appeals were registered as First Appeal No. 172 to 233 of 2001. This Court, by placing reliance on the decision in case of " Authority Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer" (2001) 2 SCC 646, held that the common award passed by the Collector under Section 33 of the Industrial Development Act, on 30/5/1986 as well as the individual awards passed by the Court below under Section 34 (1) of the said Act, were vitiated on account of the failure to implead the present appellant as a necessary party and offer it an opportunity of hearing to contest the claims made for compensation or for enhanced compensation, as the case may be. The law laid down in the case of " Agra Development Authority " (Supra) has been reiterated in the case of " Abdul Rasak and others Vs. Kerala Water Authority" reported in 2002 AIR SCW 477.