: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1040 OF 1997 The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ....Appellants V/s. Shaikh Chand Mainuddin Adam Karol ....Respondent Mrs.G.P. Mulekar, AGP for Appellant No.1. Mrs.Kiran Bagalia i/b Ms.Kirti Kokil for Appellant No.2. Mr.N.V. Bandiwadekar for the Respondent. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1669 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1040 OF 1997 Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. ....Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ....Respondents Mrs.Kiran bagalia i/b Ms.Kirti Kokil for the Applicant. Mrs.G.P. Mulekar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.N.V. Bandiwadekar for Respondent No.2. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & S.J. VAZIFDAR, JJ. DATED : 9TH APRIL, 2009. P.C. : 1. This First Appeal was initially filed by the State of Maharashtra under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 thereby disagreeing the award : 2 : passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) Sindhudurga on 22.4.1996 in L.A.R.No. 76 of 1995. The said land was acquired by the State Government but at the instance of the Konkan Railway and the land admeasures 3-H and 84-R. 2. The Konkan Railway vide their application registered as Civil Application No.3801 of 2006 applied for being impleaded as Appellant No.2 and the said application was allowed by this Court on 18.10.2008. 3. The Civil Application has been filed by Appellant No.2 stating that it was not impleaded as Respondent No.2 before the Reference Court in L.A.R. No.76 of 1995 and the award impugned in the First Appeal came to be passed behind its back. It had no notice regarding the claim for enhancement, it had not adduced any evidence and cross-examined the witnesses of the Claimants. The Applicant was impleaded as Appellant No.2 by following the law laid down in the case of M/s.Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Neyvely & Ors., AIR 1995 SC 1004. 4. This application prays for quashing and setting aside the impugned award solely on the ground that the Applicant was not made a party before the Reference : 3 : Court, it was not issued any notice so as to adduce evidence or to cross-examine the witnesses of the Claimants. In support of this prayer, the learned counsel for the Applicant has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. Awas Even Vikas Parishad v. Dhyan Devi 1995(2) SCC 326 and Agra Development Authority v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 992. 5. We have also noted that the entire amount payable to the Claimants in terms of the impugned award was deposited and the same has been withdrawn (on condition) by them. Thus no prejudice is likely to be caused to the Claimants if the application is allowed and the reference is restored and remanded to the Reference Court for a fresh decision after affording an opportunity to the Applicant to lead evidence and/or cross-examine the witnesses of the Claimants. Undoubtedly, the Claimants also will have an opportunity to adduce an additional evidence, if so required. 6. Hence the Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 7. The First Appeal is also allowed and the impugned award is quashed and set-aside and L.A.R. : 4 : No.76 of 1995 is restored to file of the learned Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) Sindhudurga. Appellant No.2 shall be impleaded as Respondent No.2 in the reference and shall be at liberty to adduce additional evidence and/or to cross-examine the Claimants’ witnesses. The Claimants are also at liberty to adduce an additional evidence if they so desired. On remand, the reference be decided as expeditiously as possible and in any case before 31.8.2009. The parties to appear before the Reference Court on 30.4.2009. 8. The parties to bear their own costs. (S.J.VAZIFDAR, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)