HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR §b\ WRIT PETITION gC) No. 2132 of2009 Executive Engineer, Chhattisgaxh Cn'ih Nirman Mandal, Division-1, Raipur, Distt. ~ Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through — Collector, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Land Acquisition O$cer and Sub Divisional Oiiicer, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Kusum Shanna W/o Shri Dr. P. Sharma. - Smt. Vandana Shanna, W/o Dharmendra Shanna. Dev Sri Shanna D/o Purushottam Sharma. (I! PETITIONER .d RESPONDENTS »aw 6. Archana Shanna D/o Purushottam Shanna. From 3 io 6 all are the R/o House No. MIG-80 Fos’t Tatibandh, Raipur (C‘G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF TNDIA $3: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agg‘llotri: J. Shri Shri Sanj Shashank ay Patel, Thakur, Advocate Panel for Lawyer the petitioner. for the State/respondents 1&2. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Advocate for the respondents 3 to 6. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 23“! day of April, 2009) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the reference Court by order dated 30.01.2009 (Annexure P/l) has enhanced the compensation without adording an opponunity of hearing to the beneficiary i.e,/ the. petitioner. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble / . . Supreme Court in UP. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi @ead) by LRS. and anatherJ in a similar case where without giving notice to the beneficiary, the reference court has considered the enhancement ofthe compensation, observed in para 21 as under: “21. In a case Where no notice is given to the local authority the position of the local authority is not different M 1 AIR 1995 sc 724 from that of the Municipal Corporation in Neelganganbai v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1990 SC 1321) (supra). In that case there was an express provision in S. 20 of L.A. Act as modified by Land Acquisition (Mysore Extension Amendment) Act, 1961 providing for service of notice on the person or local authority for Whom the acquisition is made. On a construction of S. 50(2) we have found that service of such notice is implicit in the right conferred under S. 50(2) ofthe L.A. Act,. Since the failure to give a notice would result in denial of the right conferred on the local authority under S. 50(2) it would be open to the local authority) to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 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 served on the local authority and it has appeared before the Collector the local authority may feel aggrieved on account of it being denied opportunity to adduce evidence or the evidence adduced by it having not been considered by the Collector while making the award or the award being vitiated by mala fides. Since the ainount of the compensation is to be paid by the local authority and it has an interest in the determination of the said amount, which has been given recogiition in S. 50(2) ofthe L.A. Act, the local authority would be a person aggieved who can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution to assail the award in spite of the proviso precluding the local authority hem seeking a reference. Such a challenge will, however, be limited to the gounds on which judicial review is permissible under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In a case where the local authority has failed to appear in spite of service of notice the local authority can have no cause for grievance. Even in such a case it may be permissible for the local authority to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution to assail the award if it is vitiated by mala tides or is perverse.” 2. Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act, 1894’) clearly provides that in any proceedings held before a Collector or Court in such cases the local authority or Company concerned may appear and adduce evidence for the purpose 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 Ac, 1894 by the Government for the petitioner. The reference court, t / $9 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, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 to 6 submits in fairness that it is a fact that the compensation amount has been enhanced without affording an opportunity ofhearing or to appear or adduce evidence to the beneficiary i.e. the petitioner. In light of the above decision UP. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra), the impugned order is indefensible and cannot sustain. Accordingly, the impugned order‘dated 30.01.2009 (Annexure P/l) is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the reference court to consider the case anesh atter affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-beneficiary to appear and adduce evidences, if any. “Since the land of respondent No. 3 to 6 have been acquired three years back by the award dated 13.08.2007 (Annexure P/2), it is expedient that the matter shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. / / . . Sd/- i Satish K. Agnihotri‘ Judge