ORDER
Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.
1. The 1st petitioner-Corporation being the beneficiary under acquisition, has sought for quashing the award dated 5.2.2002 vide Annexure-‘H’ to the writ petition, passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Lingasugur, in respect of Survey Nos. 11 and 8 of Yapalaparvi village, Sindhanur Taluk, Raichur District.
2. The aforesaid lands are acquired by the State Government for the purpose of installing electricity station of 1st respondent and for affording passage to the said station. The preliminary Notification was issued in the year 1998 and final Notification was issued on 8.4.1999. The award was passeed on 5.2.2002 by awarding compensation of Rs. 10,17,474/- for 2 acres 22 guntas of land which is acquired. The petitioner-Corporation by filing this writ petition has challenged the award, by contending that the 3rd respondent has awarded excessive and exorbitant compensation.
3. As could be seen from the respresentation Annexure-‘A’ dated 17.7.1996 filed by respondents 4 and 5, who are the owners of the land in question bearing Survey No. 11, they have agreed and consequently gave consent for acquisition of the said land. In the very document Annexure-‘A’, it is contended by respondents 4 and 5 that the similarly situated lands will cost Rs. 50,000/- per acre and as the land in question is a converted land, they are entitled for higher compensation. The Assistant Commissioner-cum-Land Acquisition Officer held preliminary enquiry prior to issuing of final notification and directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 75,757-50 ps. towards compensation, which was provisionally fixed. Accordingly, the petitioner said to have deposited the required amount. Thereafter, the award is passed on 5.2.2002 directing the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 13,26,346/- towards the balance of compensation to be paid to the respondents 4 and 5.
4. Sri B. Rudragowda, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended among other grounds that the petitioners are entitled to be heard before determination of the amount of compensation i.e., before passing of the award. He relies upon the provisions of Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act in support of his contentions.
The said submission is opposed by Sri Somanath Reddy, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 4 and 5 by inter alia contending that the petitioners cannot file this writ petition challenging the award and the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer binds on the State Government, as well as on the beneficiaries; that no notice need be issued to the petitioners-beneficiaries under Section 50(2) of the Act; and that the petitioner-Corporation has got no right to be heard in the matter, inasmuch as, if the Corporation wants to file objections to the proposed award, it has to file objections voluntarily before the Land Acquisition Officer before passing the award. He further submits that, since the possession is already taken by the 1st Petitioner-Corporation and since the electricity station is already established, if the award is now altered, the respondents 4 and 5 will not be having any remedy to claim higher compensation.
5. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, two questions arise for consideration in this writ petition as under:
(1) Whether the petitioner-Corporation being the beneficiary under the acquisition notifications has got right to be heard before passing of the award?
(2) Whether the petitioner-Corporation which is beneficiary under the acquisition notifications, can challenge the award before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
6. In this connection, it is beneficial to refer to the provision of Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act at this stage, which reads thus:
Section 50 : Acquisition of land at cost of a local authority or Company .- (1) Where the provisions of this Act are putt in force for the purpose of acquiring land at the cost of any fund controlled or managed by a local authority or of any Company, the charges of and incidental to such acquisition shall be defrayed from or by such fund or Company.
(2) In any proceeding 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:
Provided that no such local authority or Company shall be entitled to demand a reference under Section 18.
(Emphasis supplied by me)
Sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act makes it clear that the Company or the local authority concerned may appear and adduce evidence before the Collector or the Court for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. The said provision presupposes that the beneficiary under the acquisition i.e., the Company or the local authority should be issued with a notice by the Deputy Commissioner or the Court, as the case may be, before determining the compensation. Otherwise, it may not be possible for the Company or the local authority to know as to when the award would be passed.
7. The object underlying the aforesaid provision appears to be to safeguard the interest of local authority or company who would be required to pay the amount of compension that would be determined by the Deputy Commissioner, by enabling it to adduce evidence having a bearing on the amount of compensation before the Deputy Commissioner and thereby assist him in making a fair determination. Such protection is necessary because in the matter of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, a local authority for whom the land is acquired does not stand on the same footing as the Government. While making the award, the Deputy Commissioner acts as an agent of the Government and functions under its administrative control. Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act lays down the statutory requirement that no award shall be made by the Deputy Commissioner without previous approval of the Appropriate Government. There is no similar provision requiring the approval of local authority or company. Sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act is the only provision which affords a certain degree of protection to it in the matter of determination of the amount of compensation by the Deputy Commissioner. Keeping these considerations in view, I am of the opinion that Sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act must be construed as conferring a right on the local authority or company for whom the land is being acquired to participate in the acquisition proceedings at the stage of determination of the amount of compensation before the Deputy Commissioner.
8. The said right can be effectively exercised by the local authority or company only if it has information of the proceedings which are pending before the Deputy Commissioner. In view of the same, the service of notice by the Deputy Commissioner on the local authority or company in the matter of determining compensation is necessary for effectuating the right conferred on the local authority under Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.
9. It is relevant to observe here itself that, merely because proviso to Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act precludes the local authority or company from seeking a reference, it cannot be said that the same deprives the local authority or company which feels aggrieved by the determination of the amount of compensation by the Deputy Commissioner to invoke remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as well as, remedy available under the Land Acquisition Act.
10. The aforesaid finding of mine finds support from the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. Awas Evam Vikasparishad v. Gyan Devi (Dead) By L.R.S. and Anr. Etc., Etc. AIR 1996 Supreme Court 724 wherein it is held thus:
1. Section 50(2) of the L.A. Act confers on a local authority for whom land is being acquired a right to appear in the acquisition proceedings before the Collector and the reference Court and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation.
2. The said right carries with it the right to be given adequate notice by the Collector as well as the reference Court before whom acquisition proceedings are pending of the date on which the matter of determination of compensation will be taken up.
3. The proviso to Section 50(2) only precludes a local authority from seeking a reference but it does not deprive the local authority which feels aggrieved by the determination of the amount of compensation by the Collector or by the reference Court to invoke the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution as well as the remedies available under the L.A. Act.
4. In the event of denial of the right conferred by Section 50(2) on account of failure of the Collector to serve notice of the acquisition proceedings the local authority can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5. Even when notice has been served on the local authority the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution would be available to the local authority on grounds on which judicial review is permissible under Article 226.
6. The local authority is a proper party in the proceedings before the reference Court and is entitled to be impleaded as a party in those proceedings wherein it can defend the determination of the amount of compensation by the Collector and oppose enhancement of the said amount and also adduce evidence in that regard.
11. The aforesaid dictum of the Apex Court makes it abundantly clear that Section 50(2) of the Act confers on the 1st petitioner for whom the land is acquired, a right to appear in the acquisition proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. The said right carries with it the right to be given adequate notice by the Commissioner. In this view of the matter, the 1st petitioner has got every right to assail the correctness of the award before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the award is passed without hearing them and without notice to it. It is not in dispute in this case that no notice is issued to the 1st petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner before passing the award. If it is so, the impugned award is contrary to the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the afore cited judgment and hence the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I answer both the questions in the affirmative and pass the following order is made:
The impugned award dated 5.2.2002 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Lingasugur, vide Annexure-‘H’ to the writ petition, is quashed. It is open for the 2nd respondent Deputy Commissioner to proceed with the matter in accordance with law after issuing notice and after hearing the 1st petitioner or his authorised representative. If ultimately the respondents 4 and 5 are aggrieved by the award to be passed, it is open for them to file necessary application under Section 18 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner for seeking reference to the Court.
Writ Petition is allowed accordingly.