STATE Vs. AMJAD HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether state can maintain an appeal against a judgement and passed upon a reference u/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act in which it was not a party; is the question arising for consideration. The relevant facts of the case are that under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act (hereafter called the Act). Land situated at Sharief Abad, District Budgam was acquired for construction of Electric Grid Station. The part of the land acquired. The Collector assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 34,600 per kanal. The owner/respondent did not accept the compensation at that rate and requested the Collector for making a reference u/s 18 of the land Acquisition Act to the District Judge, Budgam. Learned District Judge entered the reference in which Petitioner No. 2, Chief Engineer was also a party, and enhanced the rate of compensation from Rs. 34,600 to Rs. 2,00,000 per kanal and assessed the compensation payable to the petitioner at Rs. 1,39,59,969 in which included the compensation for fruit trees, two sheds etc. and solarium.

(2.) THE Collector has not filed any appeal u/s 54 against the award and judgement of learned District Judge. However, the petitioner State and Chief Engineer have sought leave to appeal mainly on the plea that Collector being hand -in -glove with the claimant failed to file the appeal whereby the petitioner state has been prejudiced and consequently has been saddled with the liability and being as such an aggrieved and interested party should be allowed to file appeal against the judgement and award dated 3.12.1998 passed by learned District Judge Budgam.

(3.) THE respondent No. 1/Owner has contested the application of the petitioners inter -alia on the grounds the State being not a necessary party in the reference u/s 18 of the Act has no right to maintain the appeal.