1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1010 OF 1998 The State of Maharashtra (Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer No.I, Nashik.) ....Appellant Versus Motilal Jairam Choudhari & Ors. ....Respondents Mrs. Geeta Mulekar, AGP for the Appellant. Mr. A. J. Ahuja, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. P. P. Chavan i/b. M/s. Little & Co. for Respondent No.4. CORAM : P. B. MAJMUDAR & R. V. MORE, JJ. DATED : 22nd JULY, 2009. P.C. Heard Mrs. Mulekar, learned AGP for the Appellant, Mr. Ahuja, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Chavan, learned Counsel for Respondent No.4. 2. Mr. Chavan, learned Counsel for Respondent No.4, seeks oral leave to amend the name of Respondent No.4. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out, forthwith. 2 3. The land admeasuring about 82R, 0.82R and 4 Hectre and 11 R from Survey No.83/1, 83/4 and Survey No.63/5 at Village Maldha, Taluka – Malegaon, respectively came to be acquired by the Appellant for construction of KKV Station and staff quarters of the predecessor in title of Respondent No.4. 3. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties that neither the predecessor in title of Respondent No.4 was impleaded as party-respondent nor given any notice in Land Acquisition Reference No.433 of 1990. The Apex Court in the case of U.P.Awas Evem Vikas Parishad V/s. Gyan Devi, 1995 (2) SCC 326 and in subsequent case of NTPC Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar 2004 (12) SCC 96 held that the body for whose benefit the land is being acquired has a right to oppose the reference for enhancement of the compensation and hence, the acquired body is necessary party to the reference. 4. Since, the Respondent No.4 was impleaded in this Appeal for the first time pursuant to the Order of this Court passed on 22nd January, 2009, it is not disputed that the 4th Respondent had no opportunity either to oppose the claim for enhancement of compensation or to bring additional evidence to support the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. . 5. In the facts and circumstances, mentioned above, the impugned judgment and decree is quashed and set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Court for hearing afresh. 6. The learned District Court shall decide the said reference after providing an opportunity to the acquired body i.e. Respondents to adduce evidence and/or to cross-examine the witness already examined by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3/Claimants as well as the State Government. 3 7. Needless to mention that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3/Claimants are also at liberty to adduce an additional evidence, if required. 8. The parties to appear before the Reference Court on 24th August, 2009 at 11.00 a.m.. The learned Trial Judge thereafter, shall decide the reference as expeditiously as possible and in any case within six months from the date of receipt of this order. 9. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 3/Claimants have already withdrawn part of the amount of award deposited by the predecessor in title of Respondent No.4 after furnishing the security. The security given by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for withdrawal of the said amount shall be continued till the decision of the reference afresh. The withdrawal of the said amount shall be subject to fresh award that may be passed by the Reference Court. 10. The parties to the First Appeal undertakes that they will not seek unnecessary adjournments before the Reference Court and go on with the matter as per the date fixed by the Reference Court. The parties to bear their own cost. 11. The writ alongwith record and proceedings to be send to the Reference Court forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (R. V. MORE, J.) (P. B. MAJMUDAR, J.)