{First Appea! (Misc) under S ectior‘w 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894} Sivision Bench: - Hen’bie Shri LC. ahadoa 8: Hon’ble $‘m'i T.P. Sharma, JJ. 84-2QQ8 :- Dr. NK. shukla, Sr. Advocate with Shri SRJ. Jaiswal, Advocate fer the appenant. Shri Rakesh Jha, Depu‘y Govt. Advecate for the State/respondents N91 an 2. Shri Mukesh Sharma, cot > Heard. nse! fer respcndent No.3. d um m FI>rM$§ 1n 20079—— W m (W) WWW ammm WWW WM§YE€IW awfmm APPELLANT: NTPC Limiteci, Threugh the Generai Manager (In-charge); Sipat Super Thermal Power Project, Post Office Sipat, District Bilaspur (C.G.) —Ve rsus— RESPONDENT: 1.. State 9f Chhattisgarh, NON-APPLICANT Through the Collector, E§!aspur, District Biiaspur (CG) RESPONDENT: Land Acquisition OfficerISub NON-APPLTCANT Divisionai Ofi'ic‘er, Biiaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) RESPONDENT: 3. Aditya Tiwari, S/o Arun APPLICANT Tiwari: aged about 24 years, Rio Vitiage — Sipat, Tehsil — Masturi, District Biiaspur, Chhattisgarh. KM WW,W,W WW w: 200 wast m (W) WWW Wm WW W®ER émifcmm ferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition e award dated 15‘ september, 2007 passed by (FTC), Biiaspur in Misc. Case No.18/2006. eferred by NTPC Limited for whose benefit the and the Collector nxed compensation amount. e land was acquired for the benefit of the d by the compensation amount saying that just and proper compensation ameunt was not awarded by the Caiiectei‘, fiied an applicatien under Section 1.8 the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for making reference to the District Judge 0r enhancement sf the compensatiori ameunt. Learned Atiditional District Ju ge considered the reference anti passed the award dated 1-9-2007 hearing ditya Tiwari whose iand was acquired. NTPC Limited for whose benefit the ta d in question was acquired tiled an application before the Additional District J dge for arraying them as party and permitting them to adduce evidence in op osition of the claim of Aditya Tiwari. However, that appiication was rejected y the Additional District Judge and impugned award was passed. Dr. shukla, learned seni r counsel, argued that as per the provisions of section 50(2) of the Land A uisition Act, the appellant herein for whose benefit the land was acquired as'entitled to appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining th amount of compensation as of right. Learned Additionai District Judge has w nglylrejected the application and not made the appeilant as party, therefore, t e impugned award is had in iaw and same he set aside. Learned Additional strict Judge he directed to ailow the appeilant as party respondent and aff rd opportunity to the appellant for adducing evidence. \L mafiam This appea! has been pre Act, 1894 being aggrieved by ti‘ the 8‘“ Addiiionai District Judge, This appeai has been pr land in questian was acquired Hawsver, Adii'ya Tiwari, whss appeiiant herein, being aggrieve f i \ WW,W,W Wm vi 200 WWW (W) WWW WWW £W§W %aimm%a On the ether hand, :ea ed counsel appearing on behalf of Aditya T§wafi, argued thai the appellan herein had net filed appiication under Section 50 (2) ef the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in fact, they meved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CP has rightly rejected the applicati n. ., therefore, learned Additional District Judge Having heard learned c unsel for the parties, we have perused the application and the impugned a ard as alse the provisions of Sectien 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 18 . Provisions of 8ection 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act envisages that in any proceeding held before a Coltector or Court in such cases the iocal au .hority or Company concerned may appear and adduce evidence for the purpo e of determining the amount of compensation. Therefore, in view of the abov provisions, NTPC Limited was entitled as of tight to appear and adduce evid nce for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. tt was the d ty of the teamed Additional District Judge to permit the appellant herein to ecome party in that case as per the above provisions. Even the appella t made an application before the Additional District Judge to array them as arty and afford them opportunity as envisaged under $ection 50(2) of the nd Acquisition Act. Even though in that application, it was mentioned t . tthe application is being tiled under Order 1 Ruie 10 (2) CPC, merely quotin the wrong provisions of iaw does not disentitle the appellant to become party a of right as per the above provisions. ln the circumstances, the award dated 1-9-2007 is liable to be set aside on this oount and it is set asi e. Misc. Case No.18/2006 is directed to be arned 8”” Additional District Judge is directed to allow the appellant herein t become party respondent in that case and \. restored to its originai number. n . 9 a e ;C—78 •sn^T^T 'Ri-iich gqi 311^1 *li=b .-^ Ban/e ^,-»G; \- ^ 'yssf -^WW^, ^w'w, ^'ftwy. ^Wvtt *KI* •W^ 200 an^?r ira% (1pf^5ff) '^aiwafTO-BI^T permit them to contest fhe saicfl AcquisitionAct,1894. Learned counsel compensation amount is lying years, therefore, learned Addif referenee at the earliest. Prayer made by learned| Leamed Adclitional District Jucjge period of 6 months from the dat^ Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge reference in terms of Section 50(2) of the Land apriearing for Aditya Tiwari submitted that |with the Land Acquisition OfRcer for the last 6 (ional District Judge be directed to decidethe |counsel is just, fair and reasonable. Therefore, is directed to decide the reference within a of receipt of a copy of this order. '*l<llcl<i1-< 414i-ff ifJS^t <Fil«$K ^aiRnaii^r Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge ^"'„£'.