SPECIAL L A OFFICER JUNAGARH Vs. PRABHABATI MAJHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short, 'the Act') filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lanjigarh Road -Junagarh Rail link project, Bhawanipatna challenging the award dated 1.9.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna in M.J.C. No. 141 of 1997.

(2.) ON the basis of notification under Section 4 Sub -section (1) of the Act, 1.39 decimals of land in Holding No. 14 of Village -Sinangbhata in the district of Kalahandi belonging to the claimant -respondent Nos. 1 to 6 (in short 'claimants') was acquired for construction of Lanjigarh Road, Junagarh Rail Link Project, as. per Government Notification No. 36652 dated 17.4.1995 and declaration No. 40941 dated 16.09.1995. After conducting necessary inquiry the appellant awarded a compensation of Rs. 21,023.10 paise in favour of the claimants who received that amount under protest claiming higher compensation. On the prayer of the claimants the matter was referred to learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna under Section 18 of the Act for adjudication of the dispute regarding quantum of compensation. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna (hereafter called 'reference Court') received evidence of the parties and by resorting to captilization method fixed the market rate of the 'Atta' variety of acquired land at Rs. 48,000/ - per acre and 'Bahal' variety of land at Rs. 52,000/ - per acre. Challenging that enhancement in the rate of compensation, the present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) MR . A. Pal, learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India, which was permitted to be impleaded as respondent No. 7, supported the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant and specifically argued that the compensation amount being payable by the railways, it was a necessary party and so it should have been noticed and given opportunity of participating in the proceeding. According to him any award passed behind the back of the respondent No. 7 becomes unsustainable and non est in the eye of law as such act offends the principles of natural justice and the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (2004) 12 SCC 96.