{1} First Appeal No.817/2011 drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.817 OF 2011 Godavari Khore Marathwada APPELLANT Irrigation Development Corporation, Through the Executive Engineer, Beed, Irrigation Division, Beed VERSUS 1. Asru s/o Ganpati Kawathekar, RESPONDENTS Age-Major, Occ-Agri R/o Ukanda, Tq-Patoda, Dist-Beed 2. Pandharinath s/o Ganpati Kawathekar, Age-Major, Occ-Agril R/o As above. 3. Sakharam Ganpati Kawathekar, Age-Major, Occ-Agril R/o As above 4. Gangubai w/o Sakharam Kawathekar, Age-Major, Occ-Agril, R/o As above 5. State of Maharashtra, 6. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (M.I.) at Beed. ....... Mrs.G.L.Deshpande, Advocate for the appellant Mrs.V.A.Shinde, AGP for respondent State ....... {2} First Appeal No.817/2011 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.832 OF 2011 Godavari Khore Marathwada APPELLANT Irrigation Development Corporation, Through the Executive Engineer, Beed, Irrigation Division, Beed VERSUS 1. Arjun Shrirang Zungure RESPONDENTS Age-Major, Occ-Agri R/o Ukanda, Tq-Patoda, Dist-Beed 2. Bhimrao Shrirang Zungure, Age-Major, Occ-Agril R/o As above. 3. Sudam Shrirang Zungure, Age-Major, Occ-Agril R/o As above 4. State of Maharashtra, ....... Mrs.G.L.Deshpande, Advocate for the appellant Mrs.V.A.Shinde, AGP for respondent State ....... WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.833 OF 2011 Godavari Khore Marathwada APPELLANT Irrigation Development Corporation, Through the Executive Engineer, Beed, Irrigation Division, Beed {3} First Appeal No.817/2011 VERSUS 1. Shivaji Ankush Zungure, RESPONDENTS Age-Major, Occ-Agri R/o Ukanda, Tq-Patoda, Dist-Beed 2. State of Maharashtra, ....... Mrs.G.L.Deshpande, Advocate for the appellant Mrs.V.A.Shinde, AGP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 5 th December 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. None for the original claimants, though duly served. 2. Heard. 3. Admit. 4. The appellant, acquiring body, by these appeals, has questioned the legality and correctness of the judgment and award dated 17.08.2005 passed by 5th Ad Hoc Additional District Judge, Beed in group of Land Reference Applications. {4} First Appeal No.817/2011 5. The only objection raised in these appeals is in respect of non impleadment of the acquiring body in reference applications decided by the Reference Court. It is the contention of the acquiring body that the lands have been acquired for the constructions of “Minor Irrigation Tank for the village” for Godawari Khore Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation. It is the further contention of the appellant that the acquiring body is a necessary party as contemplated u/s 50 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. While determining the quantum of compensation receivable by the claimants, it is necessary to hear the acquiring body, which is an aggrieved party as held by the Apex Court in “Agra Development Authority V/s Special Land Acquisition Officer” AIR 2001 SC 992. In this respect, it may also useful to refer the observations of the Apex Court “U.P.Awas Evan Vikas Parishad V.s Gyan Devi” AIR 1995 SC 724 and in “Abdul Rasak and others V/s Kerala Water Authoirty” AIR 2002 SC 817. In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, referred Supra, the acquiring body is a proper and necessary party in the proceedings before the Reference Court and is entitled to be impleaded as party {5} First Appeal No.817/2011 in the proceedings and as such the decision of the reference court is vitiated. There is no other alternative but to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and wards passed by the reference Court. 6. Consequently, all these appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and awards are hereby quashed and set aside and the matters are remitted back to the Reference Court with direction to permit the impleadment of the appellant, Godavari Khore Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation / acquiring body as party respondent to the proceeding. The acquiring body shall be deemed to have been brought on record as respondents in the reference applications. The cause title of the reference applications shall be amended accordingly. The acquiring body may file written statement to the claim petitions filed by the claimants, within eight weeks from today. Both the parties shall be allowed to lead evidence. The acquiring body shall be allowed to cross examine the witnesses who are already examined by the claimants and those witnesses shall be made available by the claimants for the purpose of cross examination by the acquiring body, if request is extended in that behalf before the reference {6} First Appeal No.817/2011 Court. The evidence of the witnesses already adduced may be considered while deciding the reference applications and the witnesses, who are not available and who cannot be brought on record for the purpose of cross examination, shall be considered by the reference court while deciding the cross objections, even though the acquiring body did not have an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. It is needles to record that the acquiring body shall have liberty to adduce evidence for the purpose of putting forth their case and oppose the request of the claimants in respect of grant of enhanced compensation. The amount of compensation deposited in this Court, if any, shall be transmitted to the reference court and disbursement of said amount shall be subject to decision of reference applications. In view of the directions issued above, first appeals presented by the appellant shall stand allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Reference Court to issue notice to the respondents on receipt of writ of this writ and to decide the reference applications on its own merits, within 6 months after first appearance of the parties, without prejudice to the above observations. {7} First Appeal No.817/2011 7. Pending civil applications, if any, do not survive and hence disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B11/fa817-11