1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1138 OF 1998 IN L.A.R. NO.125 OF 1990 The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant. Vs. Shree Nashik Panchavati Panjarpol Trust, through trustees 1) Shri Vijaysing Leladhar Bhimji 2) & Ors. ..Respondents. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.984 OF 2004 IN L.A.R. NO.125 OF 1990 Nashik Panchavati Panjarpol Trust ..Appellants. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr.A.R. Patil, AGP for the Appellant in F.A. No.1138/98 and for the Respondent in F.A. No.984/04. Mr.A.J. Ahuja for Respondent nos.1 to 6 in F.A. No.1138/98 and for the Appellant in F.A. No.984/04. Mr. G.S. Hegde for Respondent no.7 in F.A. No.1138/98. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE AND S.J. VAZIFDAR, JJ. DATED : 6TH MAY, 2009 2 P.C. : - Both these Appeals filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, arise from the award passed by the learned Joint District Judge at Nashik in Land Reference No.125 of 1990 on 3.4.1996. The reference court fixed the market rate at Rs.35/- per sq. mtr. The reference court also allowed 60% deduction from the acquired land admeasuring about 80,000/- sq. mtrs. (20 acres). 2. The State Government has filed First Appeal No.1138 of 1998 challenging the market rate fixed at Rs.35/- per sq. mtr. And the Claimants have filed First Appeal No.984 of 2004 for further enhancement as well as for challenging the deduction at 60%. 3. In First Appeal No.1138 of 1998 Respondent no.7 i.e. the Maharashtra Road Transport Corporation, Vahatuk Bhawan, Mumbai, came to be impleaded as per the order dated 25.11.1998 in Civil Application No.10394/98 as the Claimants land was acquired by the State Government for the construction of Bus Depot/workshop of the said Respondent no.7. 4. Mr.Hegde, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent no.7 in First Appeal No.1138 of 1998 submitted that the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation was neither impleaded as one of the Respondents before the reference court nor was it issued any notice so as to provide an opportunity of adducing evidence or cross-examining the witnesses of the Claimants as well as the State Government. He relies upon the following judgments and prays for quashing of the award so as to restore the land reference and remand it for further adjudication by the reference court :- i) U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (1995)2 SCC, 326; 3 ii) Agra Development Authority v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2001, SC, 1992; iii) NTPC Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2004) 12 Supreme Court Cases, 926. 5. There is no dispute that Respondent no.7 was not impleaded as Additional Respondent before the reference court and it did not have any notice before the impugned award came to be passed. Hence, by following the law laid down in the above cited cases, the impugned award will have to be set aside by restoring the reference application for afresh adjudication on the enhancement claims of the land owners. 6. In the premise, we allow these Appeals partly and quash and set aside the impugned award dated 3.4.1996 in L.A.R. No.125 of 1990. 7. We hereby restore L.A.R. No.125 of 1990 to the file of the learned Joint District Judge, Nashik and remand the same for a de-novo enquiry, by adding the present Respondent no.7 as Respondent no.2 in the reference application. The added Respondent shall be given an opportunity to lead evidence and/or to cross-examine the witnesses already examined by the Claimants as well as the State Government. 8. Undoubtedly, the Claimants also will have the right to lead evidence, if so desired. 4 9. The parties to appear before the reference court on 10.6.2009 at 11.00 a.m. and, we direct that that the reference, on restoration, shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, before 31.10.2009. 10. We record the undertaking of the parties that they would not seek unwarranted adjournments before the reference court and go on with the matter so as to enable the Court to pass the award within the time schedule stated hereinabove. 11. The order of withdrawal of the amount will continue to operate and the withdrawal will be subject to the final outcome on demand. 12. Parties to bear their own costs. 13. The writ alongwith R & P to go in the reference court forthwith. 14. All issues are left open. 15. Court fees, if any, as per rules. (S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)