L A O Vs. SYED WALIUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Bodhan in O.P. No. 30/1988, dt.30-7-1990.

(2.) An extent of about 12 1/2 acres of land in Madnoor village, Nizamabad District was acquired by the Government at the instance of the Housing Board for providing House sites to the weaker sections. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per acre. Since claimants were not satisfied with that, a reference was made to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Civil Court granted compensation at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq. yard. Against that order,this appeal is preferred.

(3.) The first submission of the learned counsel for the Housing Board is that before enhancing the compensation, the Court ought to have issued notice to the Housing Board at whose instance the land was acquired and since that is not done, the matter has to be remitted and notice has to be given to the Housing Board and then the matter should be decided afresh. He relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti vs. Ashok Singhal and others. In that case, the acquisition was made for the benefit of the appellant, which was a statutory body. It was contended that since the acquisition was for the benefit of the statutory body, it is incumbent upon the Court of reference as also the High Court in appeal to issue notice to the appellant before considering the claim of the land owners for enhancement of the compensation. It was not disputed before the Supreme Court that the provisions of the Act which require service of notice to the body for whose benefit the acquisition was made are attracted to this case and that such notice was not served on the appellant and the appellant has no opportunity of being heard. The learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the judgment under appeal may be set aside and the matter be remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal after affording an opportunity to the appellant of being heard. Therefore, the judgment of the High Court is set' aside and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the appellant for hearing. It could be seen from the narration of facts in that case it was conceded before the Court that the provisions of the Act require service of the notice to the Body for whose benefit the acquisition was made are attracted to that case.