IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY VPH CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL No. 1967 OF 2008 Kokan Railway Corpn. Ltd. ... Appellant Vs Bablya Shankar Vawade & Anr. ... Respondents Ms. Asha Bhambani i/b Lalita Panchak Sham, for the Appellant. Mr. S. N. Gawade, AGP, for the Respondent No.2. CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED: JANUARY 20, 2009. P.C.: ---- . Heard. By consent of parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The facts in this appeal stand in the narrow compass,inasmuch as the land of the respondent No.1 was acquired for the present appellant ’Kokan Railway Corporaton Ltd.’ for the Kokan Railway Project. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award under Section 11 of th Land Acquisition Act. Being dissatisfied with the award, an application under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act was moved by the respondent No.1, purusant to which Reference was made to the Civil Court. The Reference Court allowing the Application, - 2 - passed an award against the State Government, enhancing the amount of compensation, awarded by the Specal Land Acqusition Officer. It is this reference award passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division Ratnagiri, dated 6th March, 2002, enhancing the compensation, is challenged by filing this appeal, at the behest of the appellant Kokan Railway Corporation. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Kokan Railway Corporation Ltd. was the necessary party as it falls within the definition of "person interested", when it relates to awarding compensation or its enhancement. In the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant was denied reasonable opportunity of hearing as it was not impleaded as party respondent before the Reference Court. Hence, he prayed for quashing and setting aside of the impugned award and remanding the matter for deciding afresh after hearing the appellant. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the decision 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, 1] [AIR 1995 Supreme Court, 1] [AIR 1995 Supreme Court, 1] in support of his contention. In all fairness, the learned counsel for the respondent concedes that present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court - 3 - and thus, does not oppose the prayer for remand for de de de novo novo novo trial and afresh decision by the Reference Court. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that usual practice followed by the High Court in remanding the matter has been to direct the deposit of 50% amount of enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court, by the appelant and the consequential grant of permission to withdrawal of the same by the owner or holder of the land, however, subject to furnishing of surety. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench, dated 1st March, 2005 passed in First Appeal 1003 of 2003. Obviously the recourse taken by the Court is with a view to adjust equities. It does not lay down any law as such. But with a view to follow the practice adopted by this Court, I pass the following order. (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) Impugned award passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference No. 64 of 1994 dated 6th March 2004 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for a do novo hearing and fresh decision in the matter. (iii) Needless to mention that the appellant Kokan - 4 - Railway Corporation Ltd. shall be entitled to an opportunity of hearing and thus, Respondent No.1 shall implead the appellant as party respondent in the Land Reference No. 64 of 1994 before the Reference Court. (iv) The appellant shall deposit 50% of the amount of enhanced compensation in the trial Court and the respondent No.1 is permitted to withdraw the same on furnishing surety to the satisfaction of the Court below. (v) Needless to mention that as the land reference is very old, the same shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and hopefully within a period of six months from today. (vi) Appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. (vii) All Civil Applications stand disposed as rendered infructuous, in view of disposal of this appeal. Sd/- [ A. P. DESHPANDE, J.]