MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE State is aggrieved by the judgment and award of enhancement of compensation from Rs. 0. 07 per sq. mt. awarded by the land Acquisition Officer to Rs. 7. 50 per sq. mt. (Rs. 7. 43 per sq. mt. additional) in respect of 3,20,776 sq. mts. with 30% solatium and 15% interest per annum from the date of possession till the date of award of Land Acquisition officer and 9% per annum till one year after the possession was taken. It is further directed that if the amount is not paid within one year from the date of the award of the Court, the claimants will be entitled to the interest at the rate of 15% per annum till the entire amount is deposited. The additional award is for Rs. 43,75,662. 29 and with running interest, the award is of more than one crore of rupees as against the award of the Land Acquisition officer which was of less than Rs. 2,50,000. 00. ( 2 ) SECTION 4 Notification was issued on 12/01/1978 as the land was likely to be needed for a public purpose, namely, for construction of irrigation tank. The land proposed to be acquired of village Ankevaliya in dhandhuka Taluka of Ahmedabad District was part of Survey No. 2/4 and the approximate area proposed to be acquired was 50 H. 45 A. 44 sq. mts. i. e. 5,04,544 sq. mts. Section 6 Notification was issued on 1/01/1981 and acquisition was restricted to 32 H. 7 A. 76 sq. mts. i. e. , 3,20,776 sq. mts. The land was acquired at the instance of and for the purpose of Ahmedahad district Panchayat which is the acquiring body. The Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on 30/06/1982 awarding compensation at the rate of rs. 0. 07 per sq. mts. on the basis of sale instances. ( 3 ) A land reference came to be made to the District Court, Narol and it was registered as Land Acquisition Case No. 633 of 198 7/04/1987 and the 2nd. Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad Rural at Narol passed an order " (Notices to the parties and acquiring body to issue)" dated 3/04/1987 and ultimately passed the award as aforesaid. ( 4 ) IN the appeal, the acquiring body, namely, Ahmedabad District Panchayat has been joined as a party by order dated 25-6-1990 on its Civil Application no. Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad Rural at Narol passed an order " (Notices to the parties and acquiring body to issue)" dated 3/04/1987 and ultimately passed the award as aforesaid. ( 4 ) IN the appeal, the acquiring body, namely, Ahmedabad District Panchayat has been joined as a party by order dated 25-6-1990 on its Civil Application no. 1618 of 1990. The learned, Government Pleader and the learned Counsel for the Ahmedabad District Panchayat have submitted that there is a clear breach of Sec. 50 (2) or the Laud Acquisition Act and the Court was under a mandatory duty to issue notice to the acquiring body and no such notice was issued to the acquiring body and, therefore, the judgment and award are required to be quashed and set aside. ( 5 ) CIVIL Application Nos. 807, 808 and 809 of 1988 are filed by three land owners contending that they are entitled to the compensation as their land has been acquired and the claimants before the District Court had wrongfully claimed the entire compensation for themselves and, therefore, they have made these applications for being joined as parties in this appeal. ( 6 ) SECTION 50 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended in Gujarat, reads as follows :"in any proceedings held before the Collector or Court, the local authority or company concerned shall be called upon to appear and adduce evidence, if any, for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. "the underlined words have been substituted by the State Amendment for the provision "may appear and adduce evidence". Thus, a mandatory obligation is cast on the Court to call upon the acquiring body to appear and adduce evidence. Thus, a notice to the acquiring body is a mandatory obligation on the Court. In the present case, in fact an order has also been passed to issue notice to the acquiring body and to the parties. However, no such notice was served upon any one and mure particularly on the acquiring body. The record lias been examined and it is seen that no notice has been issued to the acquiring body. In the present case, in fact an order has also been passed to issue notice to the acquiring body and to the parties. However, no such notice was served upon any one and mure particularly on the acquiring body. The record lias been examined and it is seen that no notice has been issued to the acquiring body. This question is concluded by the plain reading of the section itself and it has been so decided by two judgments of this Court in the case of rajpipla Municipality v. Manekben Chunilal Shah, (1981) XXII GLR 568 and a. M. Ahmadi, J. held that the order of the District Court under Sec. 18 of the Act without issuing notice to the acquiring body was clearly in violation of Sec. 50 (2) as amended by the Gujarat Amendment Act of 1963. The judgment and order of enhancement of compensation passed by the District Court was set aside and the matter was remanded to the District Court. ( 7 ) IN the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , Rajkot v. Amraflal Chimanlal and Ors. , [1988 (1)] XXIX (1) GLR 358, another learned single Judge of this court held that a notice under Sec. 50 (2) to the acquiring body is a must and failure by the Collector or the Court to issue such a notice would render the proceedings illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice and the judgment and award of enhancement of compensation by the District Court was quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded. ( 8 ) ON behalf of the respondent-claimants, the learned Counsel has pointed out the order of the Division Bench in the case of Gujarat Industrial development Corporation v. Special Land Acquisition Officer in Special Civil application No. 4753 of 1987 dated 22-8-1988 and the submission is made that instead of setting aside the award and remanding the matter to the trial court, the acquiring body may be given an opportunity to lead additional evidence in the Civil Appeal. In that Special Civil Application, a consent order was passed where the acquiring body G. I. D. C. had made a statement that it would make an application for joining it as a party in the First appeal filed by the State Government and assist the State Government to lead additional evidence in the said Civil Appeal and the respondent No. 2 claimant would not object to the same and will consent to such a prayer being granted. Thus, in view of the agreement between the parties to lead additional evidence in the Civil Appeal, Special Civil Application was disposed of. It is, thus, clear that there is no decision by the Court and it was only an agreement between the parties. 8a. However, in the present case, the recording of the evidence and proceeding before the Court of Extra Assistant Judge, Narol is glaring and grossly incomprehensible and incredibly fast. Though the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is of 1982 and the reference application is of September 1986, the reference is made to the Court on 3-4-1987. On that date, the Court passes an order of registering the same as Land acquisition Case and it is registered as Land Acquisition Case No. 636 of 1987 and by another order of the same date, notices are ordered to be issued to the Land Acquisition Officer and the acquiring body. That order on Ex. 1 is also reflected in the rojnama. Thus, it is seen that the Court was aware of the need of issuance of notice to the acquiring body and in fact passed an order to that effect. The rojnama, the first part of which is cyclostyled, also shows that it is the standard practice of the Court to order issuance of notice to the acquiring body and the parties and fix a date for the return of service. However, no date is fixed, no notices are issued and on 6-4-1987, (4th and 5/04/1987 were Saturday and Sunday respectively), the Advocate for the claimants and the Government Pleader appeared on their own without any intimation or notice from the Court and the matter was adjourned to 13-4-1987 for reply and framing of issues. On 13-4-1987, no reply was filed by the Government Pleader and no adjournment was sought. On 13-4-1987, no reply was filed by the Government Pleader and no adjournment was sought. Issues were raised and oral evidence of a single witness of the claimants was recorded and documentary evidence of three awards was also recorded at Ex. 12, 13 and 14 and the case was adjourned to 15-4-1987 for evidence of the opponent. On that day, the claimants produced list Ex. 15 with a pursis ex. 16 stating the apportionment and extent of the land of each of the five claimants totalling to 32 H. 7 A. 77 sq. mts. This declaration was dated 13/04/1987 and produced on 14/04/1987. The closure pursis Ex. 18 closing the evidence of the claimants dated 13-4-1987 was also produced on 15-4-1987. The learned District Government Pleader Mr; h. K. Parmar also filed a pursis dated 15-4-1987 stating that the opponent does not want to lead any evidence. The Court heard the arguments and adjourned the matter to 21-4-1987 for pronouncement of judgment and accordingly the judgment was pronounced on 21-4-1987. Thus, the entire proceedings before the District Court ended within a span of 18 days resulting into enhancement of compensation from Rs. 2 lacs to nearly a crore of rupees without any notice to the acquiring body which has to bear the entire burden of payment of compensation and without any attempt of defending the matter. The extraordinary speed and co-operation of everyone is curious and suspicious. On Friday, the reference application is received and without any notice to the parties and to the Government, the claimants and the Government Pleader appear in the matter. No notice is issued to the acquiring body which has to pay the compensation and it appears that even though the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge had passed an order to issue notices to the parties and the land acquiring body on 3-4-1987, the case came to be transferred to Extra Assistant Judge on 6-4-1987 when the learned Advocate for the claimants and the Government Pleader appeared on their own and filed appearance and even though the matter is adjourned for filing reply of the opponent to 13-4-1987, no reply is filed and no adjournment is sought, but the entire evidence in the case consists of deposition of only one claimant at Ex. 11 and three awards. 8b. 11 and three awards. 8b. The evidence of the claimant consists of the oral evidence in respect of the yield and return from the land and in that respect, there is no supporting evidence. He has stated in the oral evidence that two crops were taken in a year and the quantity of crop raised in the land and the price of those products was also stated orally in general terms and it was stated that there was net Income of Rs. 2500. 00 to Rs. 3000. 00 per bigha of land. No instance of sale or comparative market price was produced. The learned Government Pleader Mr. Parmar who purported to have crossexamined the witness has not only not tried to show that the evidence of the witness was vague, general and without any basis and corroboration, but has in fact tried to assist the cause of the claimants. The very fact that the market price as ascertained by sale instances is nowhere near what is claimed to be the value of the land on the basis of yield or return shows that the evidence of the claimant could not have been accepted at its face value. This claim of enhancement of compensation on the basis of yield is based on oral evidence of one witness only who is a highly interested witness and who is not supported and corroborated by any contemporary documentary evidence as to the number of crops. quantity of crops, prices of the commodities and the cost of production. Such evidence could not have been accepted. The learned Extra Assistant Judge observed that though the claimant might have exaggerated the quantity and the price, a small discount was made and gross income from the land was estimated at Rs. 3000. 00 per bigha if cultivation is of Jira crop and rs. 2500/- if the cultivation is of cotton. Out of gross income of Rs. 3120. 00, Rs. 1000. 00 is deducted as agricultural expenses. Thus, the net income from the land was Rs. 9-00 per sq. mt. (bigha was taken as equivalent to approximately 2300 sq. mts. ). Capitalising that income taking into consideration 10% return, the Court arrived at an amount of Rs. 9. 00per sq. mt. Out of gross income of Rs. 3120. 00, Rs. 1000. 00 is deducted as agricultural expenses. Thus, the net income from the land was Rs. 9-00 per sq. mt. (bigha was taken as equivalent to approximately 2300 sq. mts. ). Capitalising that income taking into consideration 10% return, the Court arrived at an amount of Rs. 9. 00per sq. mt. This was sought to be compared with the awards in respect of the lands of other villages and in respect of the acquisition made subsequently and came to the conclusion that the award of Rs. 7. 50 per sq. mt. would be a reasonable award and accordingly passed the award of enhancement of compensation. ( 9 ) WE have narrated above the nature of evidence only with a view to show that there is not a real contest by the Government Pleader and no opportunity was available to the acquiring body which has to pay the compensation and no meaningful purpose can be served by recording additional evidence in the appeal. In such cases where the enhancement of compensation is sought mainly on oral evidence, it is very necessary that such oral evidence is recorded in presence of the real contesting parties, more particularly the party which has to bear the burden and pay the compensation and the evidence is required to be subjected to cross-examination and the acquiring body has to be given an opportunity to lead evidence and produce documents. In the present case, nothing of that sort has been done and, therefore, it would be necessary to set aside the judgment and award and to remand the matter to the District Court. On such remand, the District Court will issue notices to the parties including the claimants, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the Government and the acquiring body-Ahmedabad District Panchayat. The district Court will also issue notices to the applicants of three Civil Applications, i. e. . Civil Applications Nos. 807, 808 and 809 of 1988 and consider whether they should be allowed to be joined in that proceeding. The opponents including the Land Acquisition Officer and the acquiring body shall have an opportunity of filing reply and raising all contentious of fact and law and the District court shall record the evidence afresh and decide the matter in accordance with law. The opponents including the Land Acquisition Officer and the acquiring body shall have an opportunity of filing reply and raising all contentious of fact and law and the District court shall record the evidence afresh and decide the matter in accordance with law. Since the acquisition is of 1978, it would be desirable that the proceeding is held expeditiously. However, we would like to make it clear that the proceeding is not to be hurried up unduly as was the case when it was heard and decided by the Extra Assistant Judge. We only direct that the District Court shall decide the matter afresh preferably within six months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. However, if it cannot be decided within six months, it would not be necessary to seek extension from this Court. But it should be seen that the proceeding is disposed of expeditiously. ( 10 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and award of the lower Court is quashed and set aside with costs of both the Court separately for the Government and the acquiring body. ( 11 ) IN Civil Application for stay, we had directed that an amount of rs. 5,00,000/- shall be deposited, and the claimants shall be at liberty to withdraw that amount. That sum has not been withdrawn so for. Now that the award has been set aside, this amount shall be returned to the party which had deposited it and shall not be paid to the claimants. Mr. Nanavati, learned Counsel for the claimants has submitted that they may be permitted to withdraw this amount. However, that request cannot be granted in view of the fact that the award has been set aside and even if amount had been withdrawn, it would be liable to be restituted and returned. Hence the amount is directed to be returned to the party which has deposited the amount. ( 12 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, the three Civil Applications for joining parties in the appeal are disposed of accordingly. We make it clear that it will be open to them to apply to the trial Court for being joined as parties in the proceedings. .