Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/2 vs The State Of Assam And 29 Ors F on 29 July, 2025
Page No.# 1/21
GAHC010192882024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : LA.App./1/2025
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
NERTS, REGIONAL HEAD QUARTERS, DONGTIEH, LOWER NONGRAH,
LAPALANG, SHILLONG 793006, MEGHALAYA. REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF MANGER DR.KAUSTAV JYOTI KALITA.
2: SHRI. JAGANNATH UPADHYAYA
SON OF SRI KEDAR UPADHYAYA
VILLAGE BALIPUKHURI
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
3: SHRI. PRASHANTA HAZARIKA
SON OF LATE KRISHNA HAZARIKA
VILLAGE BAGHMARI
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
4: SHRI. KARUNA BORUAH
SON OF SRI ROHINI BORUAH
Page No.# 2/21
VILLAGE NABAPUR
P.O. AND P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
5: SHRI. TAPAN BARUAH
SON OF LATE LAKHIDHAR BARUAH
VILLAGE SAMARIKHOWA
P.O. AND P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
6: SHRI. BHUPEN KUMAR BORAH
SON OF LATE SARAT BORAH
VILLAGE KOCHGAON
P.O. AND P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
7: SHRI. KHARGESWAR GAYAN
SON OF LATE BAPURAM GAYAN
VILLAGE BALIPUKHURI
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
8: SHRI. MUKUL BORUAH
SON OF LATE JOYGORAM BORUAH
VILLAGE MAZBAGHMARA
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
Page No.# 3/21
9: SHRI. DADUL RAJKHOWA
SON OF LATE NABIN RAJKHOWA
VILLAGE MAZBAGHMARA
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
10: SHRI. MUKUL BORAH
SON OF BHOLOK BORAH
VILLAGE UPARBAGMARA
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
11: SHRI. LILA SARMAH
SON OF LATE KUL PRASAD SARMAH
VILLAGE BALIPUKHURI
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
12: CHITTARANJAN SAIKIA
SON OF LATE THANURAM SAIKIA
REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL WIFE SMT. IJANI SAIKIA
VILLAGE NIZBAGHMARI
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
Page No.# 4/21
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
13: LATE JOYRAM BORAH
SON OF LATE BAPUKAN BORAH
REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL WIFE SMT. MINU BORAH
VILLAGE BALIPUKHURI
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
14: SHRI. HEMANTA BORAH
SON OF LATE BALI BORAH
VILLAGE JORABARI
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
15: SHRI. HARESHWAR THAKURIA
SON OF LATE BHELUTHAKURIA
VILLAGE AND P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
16: SHRI. RAJENDRA PRASAD DAS
Page No.# 5/21
SON OF LATE GOLOK DAS
VILLAGE DAWGAON
P.O.
BISWANATH CHARIALI
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
17: SHRI. KARUN BORAH
SON OF LATE TARUN BORAH
VILLAGE JORABARI
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
18: LATE PRANJAL BHUYAN
SON OF LATE PONARAMBHUYAN
REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL WIFE SMT. BINI BHUYAN
VILLAGE MAZBAGHMARA
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
19: SHRI. BIREN HAZARIKA
SON OF LATE CHANPAK HAZARIKA
VILLAGE BAMGAON
Page No.# 6/21
P.O.
BISWANATH CHARIALI
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
20: SHRI. NIRON GOGOI
SON OF LATE HOCHOLAGOGOI
VILLAGE BISWANATHIA PAM
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
21: LATE DHARMESWAR KATAKI
S/O LATE KAMAL KATAKI
REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL WIFE SMT. IMONI KATAKI
VILLAGE BALIPUKHURI
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
22: SHRI. ANIL KUMAR BORKATAKI
SON OF LATE PURNA CH. BORKATAKI
VILLAGE MARALGOAN
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
Page No.# 7/21
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
23: SHRI. AJIT BORAH
SON OF LATE JOYGESWAR BORAH
VILLAGE MARALGOAN
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
24: SHRI. KISHNAKANTA DAS
SON OF LATE JAMINI DAS
VILLAGE MARALGOAN
P.O.
BURIGANG
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
25: SHRI. CHITTARANJAN BORAH
SON OF DHARMAKANTA BORAH
VILLAGE SAMARIKHOWA
P.O. AND P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
26: SHRI. JOGEN BHUYAN
SON OF LATE SONESWARBHUYAN
Page No.# 8/21
VILLAGE KOBAIGAON
P.O. AND P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 784176
27: MISS BEENA HAZARIKA
SON OF LATE GIRISH CHANDRA HAZARIKA
VILLAGE LEHUGAON
P.O.
LEHUGAON
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN 78417
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 29 ORS F
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, POWER DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6
2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BISWANATH
DISTRICT BISWANATH
ASSAM
3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
BISWANATH REVENUE CIRCLE
BISWANATH CHARIALI
ASSAM
4:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
POWER DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
PIN-78100
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D DEKA, MR. C P SHARMA
Page No.# 9/21
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, GA, ASSAM,MR D C K HAZARIKA(R-4 TO 14, 16
TO 30),MS J KALITA(R-4 TO 14, 16 TO 30),N C K HAZARIKA(R-4 TO 14, 16 TO 30),J
BEZBARUAH (R-4 TO 14, 16 TO 30)
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
29.07.2025
Heard Mr. C.P. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. T. Marngar,
learned counsel for the appellant. And also heard Mr. K. Bhattacharyya, learned
Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. D.C.K. Hazarika and Ms.
J. Bezbaruah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 30.
2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act is directed against the
judgment and order dated 04.03.2024, passed by the learned Additional District
Judge, Biswanath Chariali, (‘Reference Court’ for short) in Misc.(Land Acquisition) Case
No.1/2019. It is to be mentioned here that vide impugned judgment and order, the
learned Reference Court had directed the authority to pay compensation to the
respondent Nos.4 to 30.
3. The background facts leading to filing of the present appeal is briefly stated as
under:-
“The appellant herein is a Public Sector Undertaking engaged in the business of
establishing transmission systems and inter-state transmission of electricity,
under the Electricity Act, 2003. For construction of 800 KV HVDC Sub-Station at
village Nij Baghmari, Mouza-Baghmara, under Biswanath Revenue Circle, the
appellant herein, vide its letter No.NEBLP/DHO/HVDC/LAND/342(A), dated
31.07.2006, had applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur, Tezpur, for
allotment of certain portion of land inclusive of Government land, measuring
Page No.# 10/21254 bigha, under Dag No.74, located at village Nij Baghmara, Mouza-Baghmara
under Biswanath Revenue Circle, District-Sonitpur. Thereafter, land acquisition
proceedings were initiated by the State respondents and among other
categories of land, there were lands of 27 small tea growers who had been
allotted the land for tea plantation under the welfare scheme of Govt. of Assam
and an adequate compensation of Rs.60,000/- each only, in the form of shifting
grant was paid to them and the determination of the compensation was made
keeping in view the provisions of Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1886. In fact
the affected small tea growers, 27 in number, were not the actual and legal
owner of the land in question and as such, they are not entitled for the
compensation as paid to full-fledged landowners and thereafter, the respondent
Nos.4–30 had preferred one writ petition before this Court, being WP(C)
No.5529/2009 for payment of the land compensation, which was later
withdrawn with a liberty to file afresh. Thereafter, the respondent Nos.4–30
had filed a fresh writ petition, being WP(C) No.856/2019, wherein this Court
vide order dated 08.02.2019, had granted liberty to the petitioner to file a
written application to the Collector, Biswanath Chariali under Section 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and further directed that if such application being
filed, the same shall be considered on merit and the Collector may make a
reference to the Principal Civil Court, having jurisdiction. The appellant herein,
though impleaded as respondent No.5 in the WP(C) No.856/2019, yet, no notice
was issued to the appellant in the said writ petition and further, the respondent
Nos.4–30 after getting the liberty from the High Court preferred an application
before the Collector, Biswanath Chariali, being a petition for reference under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on being aggrieved and dissatisfied
with the amount of compensation so received. Thereafter, the Deputy
Commissioner, Biswanath, admitted the petition as presented by the respondent
Nos.4–30 and then referred the matter to the learned District & Sessions
Page No.# 11/21Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur and vide his letter No.BLA-2/2018-19/100 dated
28.03.2019 forwarded the petition as presented by the respondent Nos.4–30
along with relevant papers. And at the stage, while the Deputy Commissioner,
Biswanath, had considered the said petition, the appellant was not given an
opportunity of being heard and the Deputy Commissioner, Biswanath, acted like
a post office and only forwarded the application filed under Section 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 without any application of mind. Upon the said
petition, the learned District Judge registered a Misc. L.A. Case No.1/2019, vide
order dated 03.04.2019.
Thereafter, the case was transferred to the Court of learned Additional
District Judge, Biswanath Chariali and in the said case, no opposite parties were
impleaded and no notice was issued to the appellant and only the Deputy
Commissioner, Biswanath, and PW-1 and PW-2 were named as opposite parties.
Thereafter, the Additional Deputy Collector (Revenue), Biswanath, has filed a
Petition, No.265/2023, for impleading the appellant herein as a necessary party
to the proceeding and in the said petition for impleadment, objection was filed
by the respondent Nos.4–30. But, the said petition was never disposed of
despite the said petition finds mention in the order sheet as well as in the
impugned judgment dated 04.03.2024. The evidence of the respondents were
admitted and documents were exhibited without impleading the appellant as a
party, who is a necessary and interested party in the case and no opportunity
was given to present their case and to cross-examine the claimant’s witnesses.
Thereafter, vide impugned judgment and order dated 04.03.2024, the learned
Reference Court has held that the respondent Nos.4–30 are entitled to get a
fair compensation for their schedule land as per the market value determined by
the Circle Officer, Biswanath Revenue Circle with interest @30% on the total
value and additional 12% interest over the total value as additional
compensation on the basis of determination of amount of compensation as per
Page No.# 12/21Section 27 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is the contention of
the appellant herein that the impugned judgment and order is against the
settled principle of natural justice, fair play and against the tenants of law and
as such, the same is arbitrary and liable to be set aside.”
4. Mr. C.P. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant i.e. Power Grid Corporation Ltd. is a Government of India Enterprise and
requiring body, and a person interested within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the
Land Acquisition Act, but without impleading the appellant and also without disposing
of the application No. 265/2023, filed by the Additional District Collector, Biswanath on
16.02.2023, for impleading the appellant herein, and also without affording an
opportunity of being heard, the learned Reference Court had passed the impugned
judgment and order and on such count the impugned judgment and order stands
vitiated on account of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice as no
opportunity of being heard was afforded to the appellant in spite of being a person
interested. And therefore, Mr. Sharma has contended to set-aside the impugned
judgment and order and to remand the matter to the learned Reference Court, with a
direction to implead the appellant herein and thereafter, to hear the matter afresh and
to pass fresh judgment. In support of his submission, Mr. Sharma has also referred the
following decisions:-
(i) In Himalayan Tiles & Marble (P) Ltd. v. Francis
Victor Coutinho, reported in (1980) 3 SCC 223;
(ii) Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd. v. Special Tahsildar
(Land Acquisition) Neyvely, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 221;
(iii) DDA v. Bhola Nath Sharma, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 54.
5. Per contra, Ms. Bezbaruah, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 to 30
submits that the appellant herein is not a necessary party and in the reference letter
Page No.# 13/21
of the District Collector, Biswanath, the name of the appellant finds no mention.
Further, Ms. Bezbaruah submits that the appellant was represented by Advocate
Pranjal Upadhaya before the learned reference Court and a perusal of the impugned
judgment and order reveals that said Pranjal Upadhaya was heard by the learned
reference Court. Ms. Bezbaruah also submits that as the appellant is not a necessary
party and as such it was not impleaded in the reference proceeding and that the
matter of compensation is pending since long and the respondent herein are suffering
a lot for the same.
6. However, to a pointed query of this Court, Ms. Bezbaruah submits that for
impleadment of the appellant an application was filed by the Additional Deputy
Commissioner and the same was not disposed of. Upon a further query, she submits
that except the cause title of the judgment, there is nothing on the record to show
that Pranjal Upadhaya had represented the appellant herein, before the learned
Reference Court.
7. In reply, Mr. Sharma submits that the appellant herein had now engaged
Advocate Pranjal Upadhyay to represent it before the learned Reference Court.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Government Advocate submits
that Pranjal Upadyaha was the Advocate for the District Collector and that he is not
aware of if he was engaged by the appellant herein, in the reference proceeding. Mr.
Bhattacharyya also submits that the impugned judgment and order may be set-aside
and the matter may be remanded to the learned Reference Court, with a direction to
implead the appellant herein, in the reference proceeding and to pass a fresh
judgment after hearing all the parties and further to fix a timeline for carrying out the
said exercise by the learned reference Court.
9. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have
carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record. Also perused
the decisions referred by Mr. Sharma, the learned Senior counsel for the appellant.
Page No.# 14/21
10. The issue of impleadment of the requiring body as party in the proceeding
before the District Collector in the land acquisition proceeding and also in the
reference proceeding, was dealt with by Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions.
In the case of Himalayan Tiles & Marble (P) Ltd.(supra),Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held as under:-
“It seems to us that the definition of ‘a person interested’
given in Section 18 [obviously Section 3(b)] is an inclusive
definition and must be liberally construed so as to embrace all
persons who may be directly or indirectly interested either in
the title to the land or in the quantum of compensation. In the
instant case, it is not disputed that the lands were actually
acquired for the purpose of the company and once the land vested
in the Government, after acquisition, it stood transferred to
the company under the agreement entered into between the company
and the Government. Thus, it cannot be said that the company had
no claim or title to the land at all. Secondly, since under the
agreement the company had to pay the compensation, it was most
certainly interested in seeing that a proper quantum of
compensation was fixed so that the company may not have to pay a
very heavy amount of money. For this purpose, the company could
undoubtedly appear and adduce evidence on the question of the
quantum of compensation.”
And thereafter, it was concluded that:
“Thus the preponderance of judicial opinion seems to favour the
view that the definition of ‘person interested’ must be
liberally construed so as to include a body, local authority, or
a company for whose benefit the land is acquired and who is
bound under an agreement to pay the compensation. In our
opinion, this view accords with the principles of equity,
justice and good conscience. How can it be said that a person
for whose benefit the land is acquired and who is to pay the
compensation is not a person interested even though its stake
may be extremely vital? For instance, the land acquisition
proceedings may be held to be invalid and thus a person
Page No.# 15/21concerned is completely deprived of the benefit which is
proposed to be given to him. Similarly, if such a person is not
heard by the Collector or a court, he may have to pay a very
heavy compensation which, in case he is allowed to appear before
a court, he could have satisfied it that the compensation was
far too heavy having regard to the nature and extent of the
land. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view taken by
the Orissa High Court or even by the Calcutta High Court that a
company, local authority or a person for whose benefit the land
is acquired is not an interested person. We are satisfied that
such a person is vitally interested both in the title to the
property as also in the compensation to be paid therefor because
both these factors concern its future course of action and if
decided against him, seriously prejudice his rights.”
11. Then in the case of Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd.(supra), Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held as under:-
“12. It is true that Section 50(2) of the Act gives to the local
authority or the company right to adduce evidence before the
Collector or in the reference under Section 18 as it was
specifically stated that in any proceedings held before the
Collector or the Court, the local authority or the company may
appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the
amount of compensation. However, it has no right to seek
reference. Based thereon, the contention is that the limited
right of adduction of evidence for the purpose of determining
the compensation does not carry with it the right to participate
in the proceedings or right to be heard or to file an appeal
under Section 54. We cannot limit the operation of Section 3(b)
in conjunction with sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act
within a narrow compass. The right given under sub-section (2)
of Section 50 is in addition to and not in substitution of or in
derogation to all the incidental, logical and consequential
rights flowing from the concept of fair and just procedure
consistent with the principles of natural justice. The
consistent thread that runs through all the decisions of this
Court starting from Himalayan Tiles case [(1980) 3 SCC 223 :
Page No.# 16/21
(1980) 3 SCR 235] is that the beneficiary, i.e., local authority
or company, a cooperative society registered under the relevant
State law, or statutory authority is a person interested to
determine just and proper compensation for the acquired land and
is an aggrieved person. It flows from it that the beneficiary
has the right to be heard by the Collector or the Court. If the
compensation is enhanced it is entitled to canvass its
correctness by filing an appeal or defend the award of the
Collector. If it is not made a party, it is entitled to seek
leave of the court and file the appeal against the enhanced
award and decree of the Civil Court under Section 26 or of the
judgment and decree under Section 54 or is entitled to file writ
petition under Article 226 and assail its legality or
correctness. When the award made under Section 11 of the
Collector is vitiated by fraud, collusion or corruption, the
beneficiary is entitled to challenge it in the writ petition
apart from the settled law that the conduct of the Collector or
Civil Judge is amenable to disciplinary enquiry and appropriate
action. These are very valuable and salutary rights. Moreover in
the language of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, in the absence of the
beneficiary who ultimately is to bear the higher compensation,
no complete and effectual determination of binding just and
proper compensation to the acquired land would be made. So it is
concomitantly a proper party if not a necessary party to the
proceedings under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The denial of the right
to a person interested is in negation of fair and just procedure
offending Article 14 of the Constitution.
Then again in paragraph No.14, it has been held as under:-
14. If there is no right of hearing or appeal given to the
beneficiary and if the State does not file the appeal or if
filed with delay and it was dismissed, is it not the beneficiary
who undoubtedly bears the burden of the compensation, who would
be the affected person? Is it not interested to see that the
appellate court would reassess the evidence and fix the proper
and just compensation as per law? For instance the reference
court determined market value at Rs 1,00,000 while the
Page No.# 17/21prevailing market value of the land is only Rs 10,000. Who is to
bear the burden? Suppose State appeal was dismissed due to
refusal to condone the delay, is it not an unjust and illegal
award? Many an instance can be multiplied. But suffice it to
state that when the beneficiary for whose benefit the land is
acquired is served with the notice and brought on record at the
stage of enquiry by the Collector and reference court under
Section 18 or in an appeal under Section 54, it/they would be
interested to defend the award under Section 11 or Section 26 or
would file an appeal independently under Section 54 etc. against
the enhanced compensation. As a necessary or proper party
affected by the determination of higher compensation, the
beneficiary must have a right to challenge the correctness of
the award made by the reference court under Section 18 or in
appeal under Section 54 etc. Considered from this perspective we
are of the considered view that the appellant-Company is an
interested person within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act
and is also a proper party, if not a necessary party under Order
1 Rule 10 of the CPC. The High Court had committed manifest
error of law in holding that the appellant is not a person
interested. The orders of the High Court are accordingly set
aside.
12. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bhola Nath Sharma (supra),
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
32. Section 50(2) represents statutory embodiment of one of the
facets of the rules of natural justice. The object underlying
this section is to afford an opportunity to the local authority
or company to participate in the proceedings held before the
Collector or the court for determining the amount of
compensation and to show that claim made by the landowner for
payment of compensation is legally untenable or unjustified.
This is possible only if the Collector or the court concerned
gives notice to the local authority or the company concerned. If
notice is not given, the local authority or the company cannot
avail the opportunity envisaged in Section 50(2) to adduce
evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of
Page No.# 18/21
compensation. Therefore, even though the plain language of that
section does not, in terms, cast a duty on the Collector or the
court to issue notice to the local authority or the company to
appear and adduce evidence, the said requirement has to be read
as implicit in the provision, else the same will become
illusory.
Then it has concluded its finding as under:-
42. In view of the above discussion, we hold that:
(i) DDA falls within the definition of the expressions
“local authority” [Section 3(aa)] and “person interested”
[Section 3(b)] of the Act;
(ii) DDA was entitled to participate in the proceedings
held before the Land Acquisition Collector;
(iii)the failure of the Land Acquisition Collector to issue
notice to DDA and give an opportunity to it to adduce
evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of
compensation payable to the landowners was fatal to the
award passed by him;
(iv) DDA was entitled to notice and opportunity to adduce
evidence before the Reference Court could enhance market
value of the acquired land entitling the respondents to
claim higher compensation and, as no notice or opportunity
was given to DDA by the Reference Court, the judgments
rendered by it are liable to be treated as nullity;
(v) the Division Bench of the High Court also committed
serious error by further enhancing the amount of
compensation payable to the contesting respondents without
requiring them to implead DDA as party-respondent so as to
enable it to contest their prayer for grant of higher
compensation.
13. Now, adverting to the facts herein this case, I find that admittedly, the land was
acquired for the use of the appellant, who is a requiring body. And as such, the
appellant is a person interested as defined in Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act,
which provides that the expression “person interested” includes all persons claiming
an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under
this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an
Page No.# 19/21
easement affecting the land. It is also well settled that the definition of person
interested is an inclusive definition and must be liberally construed so as to embrace
all persons who may be directly or indirectly interested either in the title to the land or
in the quantum of compensation. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Himalayan Tiles & Marble (P) Ltd.(supra), that the beneficiary, i.e.
local authority or company, a cooperative society registered under the relevant State
law, or statutory authority was held to be a person interested to determine just and
proper compensation for the acquired land and is an aggrieved person.
14. Thus, from the submission of Mr. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant, and also from the documents placed on record and also from a perusal of
the order of the learned Reference Court, this Court left no doubt in mind that the
appellant herein is a person interested upon the acquired land. That being so, the
appellant herein is a proper party, though not a necessary party.
15. And admittedly and indisputably, the appellant herein was not impleaded as a
party in the land acquisition proceeding and also before the proceeding of the learned
reference Court. Admittedly, also no notice was issued to the appellant herein in spite
of the application No.265/2023 being filed by the Additional District Collector,
Biswanath, on 16.02.2023, to implead the appellant herein, was not disposed of by
passing any order. It is well settled that the beneficiary has the right to be heard by
the Collector or the Court. In the case of Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd.
(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court went on to show that the language of Order I
Rule 10 CPC, in absence of the beneficiary who ultimately is to bear the higher
compensation, no complete and effectual determination of binding just and proper
compensation to the acquired land would be made and so, it is concomitantly a proper
party if not a necessary party to the proceedings under Order I Rule 10 CPC and
denial of the right to a person interested is in negation of fair and just procedure
offending Article 14 of the Constitution.
Page No.# 20/21
16. In the present appeal, the appellant is the requiring body who required the land
and has to pay compensation for the landowners. But, neither notice was issued to
the appellant nor it was impleaded in spite of a Petition No.265/2023 being filed by
the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner before the learned Reference Court. And
as such, the right to be heard of the appellant stands violated, which is a valuable and
salutary right and denial of such right to person interested. As held by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd. (supra),
denial of the right to be heard to person interested is negation of fair and just
procedure offending Article 14 of the Constitution.
17. It is well settled in catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court that right to
fair trial is a fundamental right. In a fair trial, fair opportunity has to be given to both
the parties, which is denied in the case in hand.
18. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment
and order is arbitrary and illegal as the same violates the right of the appellant, as
guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. And on such count, the same
requires interference of this Court.
19. Mr. Sharma, learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that though the
appeal has not yet been admitted, yet, at the very threshold the impugned judgment
and order can be set aside as the same being passed in contravention of the principles
of natural justice as the appellant herein was never heard in the reference proceeding.
In support of his submission, Mr. Sharma has referred to a decision of a Division Bench
of this Court in RFA No.36(SH)/2002.
20. I have carefully gone through the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in
RFA No.36(SH)/2002, dated 04.07.2005. It appears that dealing with similar appeal
filed by Power Grid Corporation, the Division Bench has set aside the impugned
judgment and order in that appeal at the very threshold and remanded the matter
back to the Reference Court to implead the Power Grid Corporation as respondent in
Page No.# 21/21
the reference proceeding and to issue notice and also to afford opportunity to the
Power Grid Corporation to contest the claim of the respondent of the said case.
21. Thus, drawing premises from the decision of Division Bench of this Court in RFA
No.36(SH)/2002 and also taking note of the submission of learned counsel for all the
parties, this Court is inclined to dispose of this appeal at this motion stage itself, as the
impugned judgment and order being passed in contravention of the principles of
natural justice i.e. without impleading the appellant herein and without giving an
opportunity of hearing to it. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated
04.03.2024 stands set aside and quashed.
22. The matter stands remanded to the learned reference Court, Biswanath, with a
direction to proceed with the same from the stage of filing of the application
No.265/2023, dated 16.02.2023 and thereafter, to hear the matter afresh by affording
an opportunity of being heard to all the person interested, including appellant and to
pass a fresh order.
23. Since the matter is pending for a quite long period, this Court would like to
request the learned reference Court to make an endeavour to dispose of the matter
expeditiously preferably within a period of four months.
24. In terms of above, this appeal stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant