m m-JF.4\»QMN).NQ$%§1 WL 2003f, 3mm (W) WWW£fEétm $Wm mmm APPELLANT: RE$PON DENT: NON-APPUCANT NTPC Limited, Thiough the General Manager (tn-charge), S§pat Super Thermal Power Project, Post Office Sipat‘ District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5uS‘ State 9f Chhattisgarh, Through ’ the Coilecior, Bi¥aspur, Dismct Bilaspur (CG) Land AcquiSitian Officer/Sub Divisional Officer; Biiaspur, Di$trict Biiaspur (CG) Arun Tiwari. Sic Late JP. Tiwari, aged about 49 years, Rm Viiiage — Sipat, Tehsii — Masturi, District Biiaspur, ‘ Chhat‘iisgarh. :tion 54 af the Lane! ACquisition Act, 1894} r /hL RESPON DENT: NON-APPL)CANT RESPONDENT: APPLICANT {First Appeai (Misc) under 5e! §ivisian Benth: - Pan’bie Shri LC. Ehadoa & Hon’bie $hri 1P. Shanna, JJ. 8-4-20Q8p Dr. N.K. Shukia, Sr. Advoc apeeiieat. $hri Rakesh Jha, Deputy {Eovt Advacate tar the State/respondentS N91 at‘nd 2. ate with Shri SRJ. Jaiswal, Advecate for the Shri Mukesh Sharma, munfel for respendertt No.3: . :,Vz:§~ / )b mw,m,m Wm m 200 mm (13W) WWW ammm mm&§ém mmm aisifcmm Th§s appea€ has been prefe Act, 1894 being aggrieved by the 8th Additionai District Judge, (FT This appeal has been pref rreq by NTPC Limited for whose benefit the iend in questicn was acquired a d the Coiiecter fixed cempensation amcunt. However, Arun Tiwari, whose ia was acquired for the benefit cf the appellant herein, being aggrieved by the ompensatipn amount saying that lust and ' proper campensation amount net awarded by the Gollectar, filed an appiication wider Section i8 o he Land Acquisition Act, 1894 fer making reference to the District Judge fo enhancement of the campensation amount. Learned Additional District Judg considered the reference and passed the award dated 29‘" March, 2007 h aring Arun Tiwari whose land was acquired. NTPC Limited {or whose benefi rred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisitien ‘award dated 29‘“ March, 2007 passed by the C Bilaspur in Misc. Case No.38/2005. application before the Additional t permitting them to adduce 'evid in opposition of the claim of Arun Tivgiari. However, that appiication was r 'ected by the Additional District Judge and impugned award was passed. )’\ « Dr. Shukia, iearned senior ounsel, argued that as per the provisions of Section 50(2) of the Land Acq sition Act, the appellant herein for whose benefit the iand was acquired wa entitled to appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the a ount of compensation as of right. Learned Additional District Judge has wron ly reiected the application and not made the appellant as party, therefore, the mpugned award is bad in law and same be set aside. Learned Additional Di rict Judge he directed to allow the appeilant ‘ as party resppndent and afford epportunity to the appellant for 'adducing evidence. he land in question was acquired tiled an istrict Judge for arraying them as party and e e g; 4., n f t s i t , _ § m W 1n 200 mm (W) WWW WWW WW WW %m’mm d counsel appearing on behah‘ of Arun Tiwari, had not fiied appHaation under Section 5O {2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 94, in fast, they maved an application under arder 4. Rule 10 {2) C.P.C., i erefore, learned Additional District Judge has righhy rejected the appiicatisn. Having heard iearned ounsel for the parties, we have perused the appiicatien and the impugned rd as alse the provisione of Section 50(2) at the Land Acquisition Act, 18 4. Ptovisiens of sectien' 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act envisages that in any proceeding held before a Coiiector or Court in such cases the locai a thority or Company concerned may appear and adduoe evidence for the purpo e of determining the amount of compensation. Therefore; in View of the abov provisions, NTPC Limited‘was entitled as of right to appear and adduce ev ce for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. it was the uty of the learned Additional District Judge to permit the appeliant herein to become party in that case as per the above provisions. Even the appella t made an application before the Additional Bistrict Judge to array them as arty and attord them opportunity as envisaged under Section 50(2) of the and Acquisition Act. WWW 0n the ather hand, iea argued mat the appeibnt here Even though in that application, it was mentioned t at the application is being med under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC, merely quotin the wrong provisions of law does not disentitte the appellant to become party a of right as per the above provisions. in the circumstances, th award dated 29‘“ March, 2007 is liable to be set aside on this count and it is et aside. Misc. Case No.38l2005 is directed to be restored to its original nu ber. Learned 8m Additional District Judge is directed to allow the appellant erein to become party respondent in that case r e i a i n HC—78 WW,W,W mm (W) amfwa‘l? Wmm wwwiwm $Wm Land A¢quisiti0n Act, 1894. and permit them to centest the said reference in terms of Section 50(2) of the amount is iying with the Land A quisition Gfflcer fur the iast 6 years, thereforg, ieamed Additionai District Jud e be directed to decide the reference at the earliest. Prayer made by learned ounsel ts just, fair and reascnabie. Therefore, Learned Additional Bistrict Jud e is directed to decide the reference within a period ef 6 months trom the dat , at receipt of e copy oft Sdl- ,7 T.P.Sharma ' his ordes'. / Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge BaWL Judge 13 W m W 200 Learned counsel appeari g for Arun Tiwari submitted that cempensation