IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY VPH CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL (St.) No. 20529 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4683 OF 2007 Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd. ... Appellant Vs Shantaram S. Shinde & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Kiran Bhagalia i/b Asha Bhambawani, for the Appellant. Mr. P. J. Pawar, for the Respondent No.2. CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED: FEBRUARY 3, 2009. P.C.: ---- . Admit. Taken up for final hearing, by consent of parties. The question that that arises for consideration in the appeal, which is filed by the Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. after seeking leave of the Court, is that the appellant was not impleaded as party respondent in the Reference proceedings before the Reference Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant, for whose benefit the land was acquired by the State Government under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, the Reference Court could not have enhanced the compensation in favour of the claimants/respondents. - 2 - On this premises, a limited prayer for quashing of the award and for remand of the matter to the Reference Court for re-trial is made. 2. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neyvely & Ors. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neyvely & Ors. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neyvely & Ors. [ AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1004 ] [ AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1004 ] [ AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1004 ] wherein the Supreme Court has held that a phrase "person interested" would include the beneficiary for whose benefit the land is acquired. It is held that while determination of the compensation, the beneficiary for whose benefit the land is acquired has a right of hearing. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent does not dispute this proposition. In this view of the matter, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the matter needs to be remanded for re-trial so that the present appellant could be afforded opportunity of hearing. 3. This Court by an order dated 18th March 2008 directed the applicant/appellant to deposit 50% of the amount payable under the impugned award with the Reference Court within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the order. It is submitted that the said amount was directed to be so deposited, with a view to release the same in favour of the respondent/claimant. - 3 - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the direction was for deposit of 50% of the amount of award by the Court below, the appellant has deposited the entire amount covered by the award and hence submitted that the respondents/claimants ought not be permitted to withdraw the entire amount so deposited. Reference award is passed in the year 2005 and about 4 years have elapsed from the date of passing of award. Thus, I am of the considered view that it would be appropriate to allow the respondents/ claimants to withdraw 50% of the amount covered by the award passed by the Reference Court. However, while doing so, interest of the appellant is to be protected. In the result, I pass following order. (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned award passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference No. 39 of 1994, on 20th August 2005, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Reference Court for its re-trial. The respondents shall implead the appellant-Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. as party respondent in the Reference Proceeding. And after affording an opportunity of hearing to the present appellant, the Reference Court shall - 4 - re-determine the amount of compensation and decide the Reference in accordance with law. (iii) The Reference Court shall permit the respondents to withdraw 50% of the amaount covered under the award, subject to furnishing bank guarantee of a nationalised bank by the respondents. It is further made clear that bank guarantee shall be kept alive till decision of the case by the Reference Court. (iv) Having regard to the delay in decision of the matter, I hope and trust that an endeavour shall be made by the learned Trial Court to dispose of the Reference as expeditiously as possible, preferrably with a period of six months from today. (v) The parties shall appear before the Reference Court on 5th March, 2009. (vi) In view of disposal of the appeal, Civil Application No. 4683 of 2007 does not survive for consideration, which is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- - 5 - [ A. P. DESHPANDE, J.]