UNION OF INDIA Vs. FAZU AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are directed against common judgment and award passed by Shri S.N. Bezbaruah, District Judge, Cachar and Hailakandi at Silchar in Misc(L.A.) Case No. 361/88 arising from Misc. Case No. 22 of 977 and in Misc(L.A.) Case No. 362/88 arising from Misc case No. 23 of 1977. Since both the appeals have from a common Judgment and only one set of paper book has been filed in both the appeals proceed to decade both the appeals also by a common Judgment. M.A. (F) No. 126/93 shall be the leading case and copy of the judgment in M.A. (F)No. 126/ 93 shall be placed on the record of M.A. (F) No. 127/93 also.

(2.) In total 136 bighas of agricultural land in both the cases situated in village Rakhal-Khalerpar, district Cachar was subject matter of compulsory acquisition by the Collector under the provisions of Assam Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1964 read with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The claimant in both the cases have claimed compensation for the compulsory acquisition of their land at the rate of Rs. 2500/- par bigha. The collector, however, awarded compensation to them at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per bigha. Against collectors award reference was made in the court of District Judge and two separate reference cases were registered. It is to be mentioned here that acquisition of land in question was made by the collector for the purpose of the Union of India in the Department of defence. Therefore, compensation payable for the land was to come from the Union of India in the Ministry of Defence. However, in the two reference cases filed in the court Union of India, Ministry of Defence was not impleaded as party. The court also did not endorse service of notice of the cases on that party (appellant herein). The collector as acquiring authority contested the case and evidence was tendered both by claimant and the collector. On consideration of the evidence available before it the court has allowed the reference cases in past and has inhanced the rate of the land from Rs. 1200/- per bigha to Rs. 1500/-. Apart from that some further relief was also granted. Feeling aggrieved from the Judgment and decree(award) of the court in both the reference cases above two first Appeals have been filed by the Union of India.

(3.) The contention in both the appeals and also in the oral submission made by the learned counsel of the Union of India is that since the amount of compensation for the compulsory acquisition of the land which was the subject matter of the Misc. L.A. Cases had to come from the Union of India it was legally necessary for the Court, before allowing the reference cases, to hear the Union of India and that for that purpose notice should have been issued to it to enable its participation in the proceeding before the Court. In support of the above contention of the Union of India reliance has been placed on U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad Vs. G. Devi(1995) II, Supreme Court Cases Page 326. On the other hand, Sri D.C. Mahanta, learned Senior Advocate has opposed the contention made by the learned counsel for the Union of India and has contended that the Judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. Avas Vikash Parishad(Supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case as the said judgment of the Supreme Court is peculiar to acquisition of land for local authorities and not for others. Whereas in the present case the acquisition of the land was not for the local authority but for the Union of India(Ministry of Defence). Sri Mahanta further contended that the law laid down by the Supreme Court is confined to the special facts of the case where acquisition is made for the local authority like U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and others whose cases are covered by Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act as special right has been conferred on local authorities for being heard in the matter of determination of compensation for the acquired land, in that context the Supreme Court, has also held that the local authority from which the amount of compensation is payable must also be impleades as party in the reference cases and the Reference Court must serve notice of the reference no the local authority concerned before deciding the reference case, in his rejoinder argument learned counsel for the appellant contended that though observation of the Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikash Parishad vs. G. Devi(supra) may be to the cases of acquisition of land for local authorities and to the provisions of Section 50 but the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case must be understood and should be applied in all the cases where compensation for the acqusition is payable by 3rd person other than the collector. Therefore, the reference court should provide an opportunity of hearing to the person who is likely to be adversely affected from the order of the reference Court if the reference was to be allowed.