1 Amk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1785 OF 2006 Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. .. Appellant Vs. Anant Vasudeo Bhave & Anr. .. Respondents Ms. Kiran Bagalia i/b Ms. Lalita Panchakshri for the appellant. Ms. V.S. Mhaispurkar AGP for respondent No.2. CORAM : J. H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 9th October, 2009. P.C. 01. Appellant is acquiring body. The claimants being not satisfied with compensation, had made Reference Application to the Collector. The Collector made the Reference before the Civil Court Senior Divison without impleading the acquiring body. The reference was decided on 04.02.2002 and long after that, the acquiring body has filed this appeal on the ground that they were not given opportunity to contest the reference as the acquiring body was not made party in the reference proceeding. The market value of the land was enhanced by the reference Court from Rs.300/- fixed by Land Acquisition Officer to Rs.1,000/- per Are. The total land involved was only 2 Ares. Thus, the appellant Konkan 2 Railway has preferred this appeal in the matter involving a small amount of Rs. 8,400/- plus other benefits. 02. Learned Counsel relied upon “AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 1004” wherein it was held that the acquiring body is a necessary party and it should be given an opportunity wherein reference application is made for enhancement of compensation. In the present case, opportunity was not given to the appellant. Relying on the said judgment, number of appeals have been allowed. This Court by order dated 17th January, 2009 allowed the First Appeal No. 2135 of 2008 and remanded the reference to the Reference Court for fresh hearing. In view of the settled legal position, it is necessary to set aside the impugned judgment and award. However, it has to be kept in mind that, the claimant, who is to get a small amount as a compensation, will be put to costs of litigation second time for no fault on his part. It is well known that, costs of litigation, particularly the fee charged by lawyers, is nowadays very heavy. If, now the reference is remanded back, the claimant will have to engage some lawyers and contest the litigation again. Taking into consideration, the costs of litigation in the proceeding before reference Court then before this Court and again before the reference Court, whole of the compensation would be wiped away in the costs of the litigation itself. The Collector was at fault because he did not implead the acquiring body 3 as a party in the reference. Therefore, in the interest of justice I pass the following order :- (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned award is hereby set aside and remanded back to the Reference Court for hearing and deciding the same afresh after impleading the acquiring body i.e. the present appellant as respondent in the said reference. The Land Acquisition Officer shall pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the claimant, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Amount of the cost and decretal amount shall be deposited before the trial Court within four weeks from this date. Claimant shall be entitled to withdraw the amount subject to furnishing security to the satisfaction of the trial Court. (J. H. BHATIA, J.)