JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the awards dated 26th July, 1990, and 31st March, 1990 contained in Annexures 16 and 17 to the writ petition.
2. The brief facts of the case are that certain land measuring the area of 11.92 acres had been acquired in the year 1986 by the State of U.P. in pursuance of the notification under Sections 4 and 6 read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act which shall in brevity hereinafter be referred to as the Act and in pursuance to that some awards were made for fixing the compensation to the landowners. The land had been acquired for the benefit of the petitioner National Thermal Power Corporation.
3. The main ground of attack is that the petitioner had neither been issued any notice nor offered any opportunity of adducing the evidence as required under the mandatory provisions contained in Section 52(2) of the said Act. The non-compliance of the aforesaid section makes the award illegal and liable to be set aside. The compensation fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is illegal and liable to be set aside. In support of that it has been averred in Para 14 of the writ petition that the petitioner was not given any notice. The petioner had received the letter dated 18.11.1989 from the Special Land Acquisition Officer informing him that certain agriculturists had approached him for getting the proposed rate of compensation from the Corporation and directed the petitioner to make proposal of compensation payable by the Corporation. The aforesaid letter was replied by the petitioner vide letter dated 19.12.1989. However, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity and the Special Land Acquisition Officer arbitrarily and excessively fixed the compensation,
4. The counter-affidavit has been filed by the State of U.P. contending therein that the petitioner Corporation was aware of the proceedings before the Collector as well as the Land Acquisition Officer and there was no need of any notice whatsoever. It is also averred that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.
5. Before entering into the merits of the case, it is compatible to reproduce the Section 50 of the said Act for the proper appreciation and adjudication of the controversy involved in the instant case.
"Section 50. Acquisition of land at cost of a local authority or Company.-(1) Where the provisions of this Act arc put 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."
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the material on record.
7. The admitted position in this case is that no notice under Section 50(2) of the said Act had been issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer or the Collector to the petitioner. Mere assertion made by the State is to the effect that the petitioner Corporation was aware of the proceedings. This by itself, to our mind, is not sufficient in the eyes of law. The legal position has already been settled in a catena of decisions. Similarl controversy was involved and has been settled by a Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Awas Awam Vikash Parishad v. Gyan Devi, AIR 1995 SC 724, in which it has been laid down that the local authority for whom land is being acquired has a right to appear in the acquisitions proceedings before the Collector and the Reference Court and would adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. It has also been held that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the only remedy to the body for whose benefit the land is acquired.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held in the case of Agra Development Authority v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2001) 2 SCC 646, that compliance of Section 50(2) of the said Act is mandatory for the Land Acquisition Authority. Non-issuance of notice could not be held to have been complied with by mere assertion that the body was aware and had participated in the proceedings with the Government and the Collector.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent case of Abdul Rasak and Ors. v. Kerala Water Authority and Ors., AIR 2002 SC 817, following the law laid down in Agra Development Authority (supra), held that the body for whose benefit land was acquired, was entitled to appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining compensation.
10. In view of the above, we find that the petitioner had not been offered due opportunity to appear and adduce the evidence for the purpose of determination of compensation. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had ever appeared or led evidence for the purpose of determination of compensation. Mere assertion by the State to the effect that the petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings is not sufficient notice in the eyes of law.
11. In view of aforesaid discussions, we feel that the writ petition is liable to. be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The matter is sent back to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for determining compensation afresh in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the petitioner to appear and adduce evidence for the said purpose. Since the matter is lingering since 1986, the Special Land Acquisition Officer is directed to decide it expeditiously preferably within three months.