Judgment:
ORDER
XLI RULES 11 & 19.
In an Appeal filed by the State challenging the Award passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition matter, beneficiary A.P.M.C. had filed an application for impleading as party respondent in the Appeal on the ground that it was not made party in the Reference Court. When the Appeal come up for admission counsel for the impleading Applicant remained absent and Court after hearing the High Court Government Pleader appearing for the Appellant, State dismissed the Appeal at the stage of Admission itself. The Respondent Beneficiary APMC filed an Application to recall the order dismissing the Appeal and for Re-Hearing the Appeal on the ground that it has not been heard before dismissing the Appeal at the stage of Admission.
Held:
Order 41 Rule 11 only mandates for hearing the appellant or his pleader at that stage. The Appellate Court is entitled to dismiss the Appeal in limine without issuing notice to the respondent, if it is not satisfied that, there are sufficient grounds to interfere after hearing the Learned Counsel for the Appellant. Here, the Appeal was filed by the State and Learned Government Pleader was fully heard and the Appeal was dismissed on merits on the ground that this Court do not find any ground to interfere with the Judgment of the trial Court. At this stage, there is no obligation for the Appellate Court to hear the Learned Counsel for the respondents. If it is not satisfied that any grounds exist to entertain the appeal, it can certainly dismiss the Appeal even without hearing the respondent. The fact that the beneficiary is also entitled to take part in the proceedings, by itself, is not a ground for setting aside the order dated 30.3.1995, when the appellant was fully heard and the decision was on merits. It is not as if the appeal was dismissed for default of appearance of the appellant. The appellant was fully heard. In that view of the matter, we do not find any ground to recall the order dated 30.3.1995 or to re hear the Appeal.
(C) LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 (Central Act No. 1 of 1894) - SECTION 50(2)
No notice was issued, to the APMC for whose benefit the lands had been acquired, was by the Land Acquisition Court as required under Section 50(2) of the Act. Beneficiary contended that as no notices have been issued to them by the Reference Court the High Court should set aside the Award of the Land Acquisition Court and remand the matter to the Land Acquisition Court for Fresh trial..It is clear that the beneficiary who was not issued notice by the Land Acquisition Court is either entitled to file an Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the Award or is entitled to file a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and assail its legality or correctness. In these cases, leave has been granted to the beneficiary and they have filed appeals against the Award of the Land Acquisition Court.
It is clear from the above decision of the Supreme Court that the beneficiary has got a right of Appeal and they can challenge the award passed by the Land Acquisition Court. By that right, given to the beneficiary to file an Appeal, it does not necessarily follow that in every case, where, notices were not issued, the High Court should automatically set-aside the decree of the Land Acquisition Court and remand the matter to the Land Acquisition Court for fresh trial after giving notice tot he beneficiary. The main thrust of the argument by the Learned Counsel for the beneficiary was to that effect, with which, we are not inclined to agree. The Supreme Court has held that they have a right of appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Court or is entitled to file a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and assail its legality or correctness, the right of appeal given to the beneficiary and accepted by the Supreme Court in the above decision is only to challenge the decree of the Land Acquisition Court on the materials already available. Perhaps, they may also be entitled to adduce further evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure in support of their case that the enhancement of compensation, was not justified. The mere fact that they were not given notice by the LandAcquisition Court, does not necessarily oblige the appellate Court in all cases, to set aside the decree of the Land Acquisition Court and remand the matter. Perhaps, in appropriate cases, if the beneficiary is able to satisfy the appellate Court that a freshopportunity has to be given to them, the Appellate Court may be justified in doing the same.
Moreover, there is one more circumstance in this case, which would persuade us not to accede to the demand of the learned Counsel for the beneficiary for the remand of the matter. The beneficiary for the remand of the matter. The beneficiary, viz., The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee was cited as a witness in that case by the claimants. Witness summons were served on them and P.W.4 one of the Officers of the Marketing Committee was examined as a witness. We are aware of the position that, being a witness, is not equivalent to being a party to the proceedings and that the right given in Sub-section 2 of Section 50 is in addition to the concept of fair and just procedure consistent with the principles of natural Justice. We are emphasising this fact only to show that the beneficiary, viz., Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee had knowledge of the proceedings. It is not as if they wee completely unaware of the proceedings before the Court. If they so minded, they could have taken part in the proceedings as contemplated under Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, and they could have appeared and adduced evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of condensation. Inspite of the knowledge of the proceedings, they did not utilise the same. They have also not produced any material before this Court, over and above the materials that were placed before the Land Acquisition Court. Moreover, the acquisition proceedings were state in 1977 and possession of the lands were taken on 21.5.1982. Not a single pie has been paid towards enhanced compensation till date. In that view of the matter, we do not think that this is a fit case where the Judgment of the Land Acquisition Court has to be set aside and the matter be remended - solely on the ground that no notice was given to the beneficiary.