:.4-< "1^'' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPVR WRTT PETITION (0 No. 2037 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Executive Engineer, Chliattisgar Grih Nirman Masidal Division 1, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) \rERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur(C.G.) 2. Laiid Acquisition Office and Sub Divisional Officer, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3. Kusum Sharma W/o Shri Dr. P.Sharma, R/o House No. MIG-80, Post Tatibaiidh, Raipur (C.G) WRIT PETITION LWDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITVTION QF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondents 1&2. Ms. Shamiila Siiigliai, Advocate forthe respondents 3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 24th day of April, 2009) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the reference Court by order dated 30.01.2009 (Annexure P/l) hasenhanced the compensation without affording an opportunity of hearing to the beneficiary i.e. the petitioner. The Constitution Bench ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in C/.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (Dead) by L.RS. and anothej^ in a similar case where without giving notice to fhe beneficiary, the reference court has considered the eiihancement offhe compensation, observed in para 21 as under: "21. In a case where no notice is given to the local authority the position offlie local authority is not different from that ofthe Municipal Corporation in Neelganganbai v. State ofKamataka (AIR 1990 8C 1321) (supra). Inthat case there was an express provision in 8. 20 ofL.A. Act as modified by Land Acquisition (Mysore Extensiosi Amendment) Act 1961 providing for service ofnotice 021 1 AIR 1995 SC 724 ^.^11..^' f3^ the person or local authority for whom the acquisition is made. On a constmction of S. 50(2) we have found that ser^ice of such notice is implicit in the right conferred under S. 50(2) ofthe L.A. Act,. Siiice the failure to give a notice would result in denial ofthe right conferred on the local authority uiidei' 8. 50(2) it would be opento the local authority to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Ail. 226 ofthe Constitution to challenge the award made by the Collector as was done in Neelganganbai case (supra). In a case where notice has been ser^ed on the local authority and it has appeared before the Collector the local authority may feel aggrieved on account ofit bemg denied opportunity to adduce evidence or the evidence adduced by it havitig not beeii considered by the Collector while making the award or the award being vitiated by mala fides. Since the amount ofthe compensation m to be paid by the local authority and it has an irrterest in the detemiination ofthe said amount, wliich has been given recognition in S. 50(2) ofthe L.A. Act, the local authority would be a person aggrieved who can mvoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Ail. 226 of the Coiistitirtion to assail the award m spite of the proviso precluding the local authority from seeking a reference. Such a challeiige will, however, be limited to the gt'ounds on which judicial review is permissible under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In a case where the local authority has failed to appeai' in spite of sei-vice of iiotice flie local authority caii have no cause for grievaiice. Even m such a case it may be peimissible for the local authority to mvoke the jurisdiction ofthe Higli Court undei- Art. 226 ofthe Constitution to assail the award if it is vitiated by mala fides or is pei-verse." Section 50(2) ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act, 1894') cleariy provides that in aiiy proceedings held before a Collector or Court in such cases the local authority or Company concemed may appear and adduce evidence for the puq>ose of determining the amount of compensation. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner is the beneficiary as the land has been acquired under the provisions of the Act 1894 by the Govemment for fhe petitioner. The reference court, without issuing notice to the beneficiary i.e. the petitioner and affording an opportunity to appear and adduce evidence, has enhanced the compensation amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, many times. Ms. Singhai, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 submits in faimess that it is a fact that the compensation amount has been enhanced without alEFording an opportumty ofhearing or to appear or adduce evidence to the beneficiary i.e. the petitioner. In light ofthe above decision l/.P. Av^as Evam Vikas Parishad (supra), the impu^ied order is indefensible and cannot sustain. Accordingly, fhe impugned order dated 30.01.2009 (Annexure P/l) is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the reference court to consider the case afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-beneficiary to appear and adduce evidences, ifany. Since the land ofrespondent No. 3 has been acquired three years back by the award dated 13.08.2007 (.^miexure P/2), it is expedient that the matter shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period offour months. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Amit