JUDGMENT
A.P. Lavande, J.
Page 3391
1. All these appeals are being disposed of by common judgment since common questions of fact and law are involved in all these appeals.
Page 3392
2. State of Maharashtra acquired lands belonging to several persons, including those of the respondents in the present appeals for the benefit of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as .The Corporation.) under the provisions of Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Aggrieved by the compensation fixed by the Collector, the land owners filed the application under Section 34 of the Act claiming higher compensation. In all the references the State of Maharashtra was was made party. The Corporation was not joined as party in the references. The Court, after considering the evidence led by the claimants and State of Maharashtra enhanced the compensation. Aggrieved by the judgments and orders passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur in several Land Acquisition References, the Corporation has filed above appeals. The details of the said References are as under:
F.A. No. LAC No. Date of Judgment 256/2001 28/1995 15/11/2000 230/2001 17/1995 15/11/2000 584/2002 41/1995 30/04/2001 204/2003 39/1995 30/04/2001 205/2003 29/1995 30/04/2001 236/2001 22/1995 09/10/2000 237/2001 20/1995 15/11/2000 249/2001 38/1995 21/10/2000 271/2001 23/1995 21/11/2000 272/2001 42/1995 21/10/2000 307/2001 26/1995 15/11/2000 323/2001 15/1995 15/11/2000 334/2001 19/1995 15/11/2000 354/2001 16/1995 15/11/2000 514/2001 33/1995 30/04/2001 534/2002 43/1995 30/04/2001 545/2002 27/1995 20/04/2001
I have heard Mr. Agnihotri, learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant-Corporation, Mr. Deopujari, learned AGP for the respondent-State of Maharashtra, and Mr. and Ms. Patil, learned Counsel for the claimants/respondents.
4. Mr. Agnihotri, learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that impugned judgments and orders are liable to be set aside on the ground that although the acquisition of lands belonging to the respondents/claimants was made for the benefit of the Corporation and consequently, it is the responsibility of the Corporation to pay enhanced compensation, the Corporation was not made a party before the Reference Court. According to Mr. Agnihotri, the Corporation was necessary party before the Reference Court and therefore, the judgments and orders passed by the Reference Court are vitiated. According to Mr. Agnihotri, all the impugned judgments and orders are liable to be set aside and the matters remanded back to the Reference Court for dealing with the matters in the light of the directions given by the Apex Court in several judgments. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel relied upon the following judgments:
(i) U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (Dead) by L.Rs. and Anr.
(ii) Abdul Rasak and Ors. v. Kerala Water Authority and Ors.
(iii) (2004) 12 Supreme Court Cases 96 NTPC Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Page 3393
5. Mr. Deopujari, learned AGP supported the submissions made by Mr. Agnihotri, learned Counsel for the appellant- Corporation in all the appeals. In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex court in various judgments, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants could not seriously support the impugned judgments and orders.
6. In U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad’s case (supra) the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that when the land is acquired for local authority or company, the authority or local company as the case may be 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 this regard.
In Abdul Rasak’s case (supra) the Apex Court after referring to the above referred Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court gave certain directions.
In NTPC Ltd’s case (supra) the Apex Court held that body on whose behalf land is acquired is necessary and proper party and therefore entitled to be impleaded in proceedings before Reference Court and in case body on whose behalf land is acquired is not join ed before the Reference Court, award passed in its absence is liable to be set aside and the matter remanded back to the Reference Court.
In view of clear ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex court and the other judgments of the Apex Court relied upon by the appellant to the effect that body for whose benefit the land is acquired is necessary party before the Reference Court, the impugned judgments and orders are liable to be set aside. Consequently, the judgments and orders passed by the Reference Court, the details of which are given in paragraph 2 above, are set aside with the following directions:
(1) The Corporation shall be deemed to have been brought on record in the reference cases as defendant-non-applicant as the case may be. The cause title of the reference cases shall be amended accordingly. The Corporation is at liberty to file its written statement.
(2) The statement of the witnesses already recorded on behalf of the claimants need not be recorded afresh.
(3) The Corporation shall be allowed an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses which have already been examined. However, such of the witnesses as are not available, and, therefore, cannot be called before the Court, their statements shall not be excluded from consideration and shall be read in evidence.
(4) The claimants may adduce such other evidence as they may propose to do and State of Maharashtra and Corporation shall have the liberty to cross-examining such witnesses who are now examined by the claimants.
(5) The Corporation shall have the liberty of adducing such evidence as it may propose to do.
Page 3394
(6) The Corporation shall not be entitled to a separate notice of the proceedings since the parties are represented by counsel. They are directed to appear before the Reference Court on 1st November, 2006 at 11.00 a.m. either personally or through their advocates.
(7) Since the lands of the claimants were acquired more than a decade ago, the Civil Court shall decide the References expeditiously and preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of this order.
The next question which arises for consideration is what order should be passed in relation to the amounts deposited by the appellants in these appeals pursuant to the orders passed upon the applications for stay filed by the Corporation. Learned Counsel for the claimants submitted that in few matters the amounts were withdrawn by the claimants upon giving security but in most of the matters the same have been invested. In those cases in which the amounts have not been withdrawn by the claimants, needless to mention that the Corporation shall be entitled to get back the amounts deposited by them in the appeals with interest thereon if the amounts have been invested in bank. In those cases in which the claimants-respondents have withdrawn the amounts upon giving security, they shall deposit the amounts received by them in this Court within a period of eight weeks and the Corporation shall be entitled to withdraw the same.
9. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Registry to send the records and proceedings in all the appeals to the Reference Court expeditiously.