R.F.A. No. 5235 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 9.12.2008 1. CM No 11050-CI of 2008 and R.F.A No. 5235 of 2008(O&M) Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board .....Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents 2. CM No 11055-CI of 2008 and R.F.A No. 5236 of 2008(O&M) Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board .....Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents 3. CM No 11060-CI of 2008 and R.F.A No. 5237 of 2008(O&M) Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board .....Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents 4. CM No 11065-CI of 2008 and R.F.A No. 5238 of 2008(O&M) Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board .....Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents 5. CM No 11070-CI of 2008 and R.F.A No. 5239 of 2008(O&M) Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board .....Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents R.F.A. No. 5235 of 2008 [2] 6. CM No 11075-CI of 2008 and R.F.A No. 5240 of 2008(O&M) Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board .....Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents 7. CM No 11080-CI of 2008 and R.F.A No. 5241 of 2008(O&M) Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board .....Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents 8. CM No 11085-CI of 2008 and R.F.A No. 5242 of 2008(O&M) Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board .....Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents 9. CM No 11090-CI of 2008 and R.F.A No. 5243 of 2008(O&M) Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board .....Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents 10. CM No 11095-CI of 2008 and R.F.A No. 5244 of 2008(O&M) Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board .....Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents 11. CM No 11100-CI of 2008 and R.F.A No. 5245 of 2008(O&M) Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board .....Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents R.F.A. No. 5235 of 2008 [3] 12. CM No 11105-CI of 2008 and R.F.A No. 5246 of 2008(O&M) Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board .....Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents 13. CM No 11110-CI of 2008 and R.F.A No. 5247 of 2008(O&M) Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board .....Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents 14. CM No 11115-CI of 2008 and R.F.A No. 5248 of 2008(O&M) Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board .....Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents 15. CM No 11120-CI of 2008 and R.F.A No. 5249 of 2008(O&M) Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board .....Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents 16. CM No 11387-CI of 2008 and R.F.A No. 5355 of 2008(O&M) Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board .....Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents 17. CM No 11392-CI of 2008 and R.F.A No. 5356 of 2008(O&M) Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board .....Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents R.F.A. No. 5235 of 2008 [4] CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of a bunch of above mentioned 17 applications filed by the applicant-appellant under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as respondent in the land reference decided by the court below and further for permission to file appeal against the same to this Court, as common questions of law and fact are involved. The facts have been noticed from application in R.F.A. No. 5235 of 2008. The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (for short, `the Marketing Board') has filed the present application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with permission to implead them as necessary party, i.e., respondents No. 4 in the main award dated 20.2.2004 of the learned Reference Court in land acquisition proceedings, which is sought to be impugned before this Court. Along with the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 1421 days in filing the appeal has also been filed. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submitted that 31 acres, 1 kanal and 3 marlas of land was acquired by the State on behalf of Marketing Board for setting up a New Grain Market at Bhikhi, District Mansa. The prayer in the application for being impleaded in the award of the Reference Court, which was decided on 20.2.2004, was made with the following averments: “(2) That brief facts leading to the present controversy are that 31 acres 1 kanal 3 marlas of land acquired by the Govt. on behalf of the appellant Board for setting up a New Grain Market at Bhikhi, District Mansa. The Collector after considering the relevant points raised by the parties passed a well reasoned award under Section 11 of the Act and granted Rs. 45,019/- per acre for the Nehri land and Rs. 59,378/- per acre for the Gair Mumkin land. The Addl. District Judge, Mansa on reference made u/s 18 of the Act enhanced the compensation amount to whooping Rs. 5 to 7.5 lacs per acre by dividing the land in three lots i.e. granting an increase of nearly 10 times to 15 times per R.F.A. No. 5235 of 2008 [5] acre for the land, which is on an extremely higher side. Thus the compensation on account of acquired land has been granted by imaginations in an indscriminate manner. The accompanying appeal is now being filed by the applicant as the entire compensation amount is to be borne by the applicant- appellants. (3) That neither the applicant was impleaded as party nor any notice of any proceedings was given to the applicant in the present case and thus in view of the above facts the applicant is adversely affected behind its back and the enhanced compensation amount shall lead to a huge financial burden on the exchequer of the Board which is a public institution. In view of law settled in UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi 1995(1) RRR 272, the applicant is fully entitled to file the present appeal by being impleaded as a necessary party.” Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submitted that as the compensation for the acquired land has to be borne by the applicant-appellant, it is the necessary party and in fact, it should have been impleaded as respondent in the reference proceedings, but the land owners having failed to implead it, the applicant-appellant is now entitled to be impleaded as respondent in the award of the learned court below and consequently file appeal before this Court to impugn the award in which the learned Reference Court has increased the value of the acquired land to nearly 10 times to 15 times as compared to the award of the Land Acquisition Collector. Reliance was placed upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in U.P.Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (dead) by L.Rs., 1995(1) RRR 272. A perusal of the contents of the application, as reproduced above, shows that all what is stated in the application is that the appeal is now sought to be filed as the entire compensation amount is to be borne by the applicant- appellant. It was further submitted that the applicant-appellant was not impleaded as party before the Reference Court nor any notice was given to it as it was not adversely affected at that time. The fact is that the award of the learned court below, which is sought to be impugned with permission to file appeal before this Court, is already under challenge by the State in the appeals filed by it. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in U. P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad's case (supra), while considering a similar issue, summed up the enunciation of law in R.F.A. No. 5235 of 2008 [6] the following terms: “(50) Section 50(2) of the L.A. Act confers on a local authority for whom land is being acquired a right to appear in the acquisition proceedings before the Collector and the reference court and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. (51) The said right carries with it the right to be given adequate notice by the Collector as well as the reference court before whom acquisition proceedings are pending of the date on which the matter of determination of compensation will be taken up. (52) The proviso to Section 50(2) only precludes a local authority from seeking a reference but it does not deprive the local authority which feels aggrieved by the determination of the amount of compensation by the Collector or by the reference court to invoke the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution as well as the remedies available under the L.A. Act. (53) In the event of denial of the right conferred by Section 50(2) on account of failure of the Collector to serve notice of the acquisition proceedings the local authority can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. (54) Even when notice has been served on the local authority the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution would be available to the local authority on grounds on which judicial review is permissible under Article 226. (55) The local authority is proper party in the proceedings before the reference court and is entitled to be impleaded as a party in those proceedings wherein it can defend the determination of the amount of compensation by the Collector and oppose enhancement of the said amount and also adduce evidence in that regard. (56) In the event of enhancement of the amount of compensation by the reference court if the Government does not file an appeal the local authority can file an appeal against the award in the High Court after obtaining leave of the Court. R.F.A. No. 5235 of 2008 [7] (57) In an appeal by the person having an interest in land seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the reference court the local authority should be impleaded as a party and is entitled to be served notice of the said appeal. This would apply to an appeal in the High Court as well as this Court. (58) Since a company for whom land is being acquired has the same right as a local authority under Section 50(2), whatever has been said with regard to a local authority would apply to a company too. (59) The matter which stand finally concluded will, however, not be re-opened.” A perusal of paragraph 55, as reproduced above, shows that local authority is a proper party in the proceedings before the Reference Court, where it is entitled to be impleaded as a party to defend the award of the Collector and oppose further enhancement. It can also lead evidence in defence. It is not disputed that before the Reference Court, the applicant-appellant never filed any application for being impleaded as party. As far as the facts of the present case, as stand today, the enunciation of law, as is evident from paragraphs 56 and 57, is relevant wherein it is held that in case of enhancement of compensation by the Reference Court in case the State does not file appeal, the local authority can file appeal against the award in the High Court after obtaining leave of the Court. It is further held that in case an appeal has been filed by a person seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Reference Court, the local authority should be impleaded as party and has a right to be served with notice of appeal. In the present case, the undisputed fact is that the State has already filed appeals against the impugned award. Even the land owners have also come up in appeals seeking further enhancement of compensation. Both the set of appeals are admitted and pending consideration before this Court. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the applicants cannot be permitted to file a separate appeal as the same has already been filed by the State against the impugned award in terms of paragraph 57 of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, as referred to above. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, no further orders are required on application for condonation of delay and the appeal. R.F.A. No. 5235 of 2008 [8] Accordingly, the same are also dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge December 09 , 2008 mk