Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 659 (GUJ)

GENERAL MANAGER v. VAGHELA FATUJI KANAJI

2005-09-20

K.M.MEHTA, R.S.GARG

body2005
R. S. GARG, K. M. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THESE are applications by the applicant seeking leave to file appeals against the award made by the Reference Court. It is not in dispute before us that the applicant/appellant before us was a party and non-applicant before the Reference Court. On being asked as to why leave is required for filing an appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the matter of U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi, reported in [1995] 2 Supreme Court Cases 326, acquiring body, if is aggrieved by the award made by the Reference Court, has to seek leave for filing the appeal. ( 2 ) BEFORE adverting to the facts and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad [supra], we would refer to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides that acquisition of land which is at the cost of the local authority or Company, the cost of the acquisition shall be defrayed from or by such fund or Company. Sub-section [2] provides that if 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. Gujarat Amendment in sub-section (2) records that the words "may appear and adduce evidence" shall be substituted by the words "shall be called upon to appear and adduce evidence, if any. " Proviso appended to Section 50, however says that no such local authority or Company shall be entitled to demand a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act relates to filing of an appeal by a party aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Reference Court. " Proviso appended to Section 50, however says that no such local authority or Company shall be entitled to demand a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act relates to filing of an appeal by a party aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Reference Court. It says that subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), [now to be read as amended by the Act of Code of Civil Procedure] applicable to appeals from original decrees, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment for the time being in force, an appeal shall only lie in any proceedings under the Acquisition Act to the High Court from the award, or from any part of the award, of the Court and from any decree of the High Court passed on such appeal as aforesaid an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court subject to the provisions contained in Section 110 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908, and in Order XLIV thereof. From a fair understanding of Section 54 of the Acquisition Act, it would clearly appear that an appeal under Section 54 is subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as is applicable to the appeals from original decrees and this right of appeal is conferred on the party notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment for the time being in force. Under Section 54, an appeal shall lie to the High Court only and not to any other Court. The appeal shall be subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 3 ) SECTION 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure says that save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of the Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction to the Court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court. Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 96 are not material for the present dispute, therefore, we are not referring to the same. Under Section 96, an appeal against original decree shall be submitted to the Court authorized to hear the appeals. This authorization should be under the Civil Courts Act or under the Rules. Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 96 are not material for the present dispute, therefore, we are not referring to the same. Under Section 96, an appeal against original decree shall be submitted to the Court authorized to hear the appeals. This authorization should be under the Civil Courts Act or under the Rules. In Gujarat, prior to Civil Courts Act, 2005, certain appeals from the judgments of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) were to be filed in the High Court, but now, those are to be heard by the learned District Judge or his assignee. Though there was particular assignment and authorization in favour of a particular Court under Section 96 or under the Scheme of the Civil Courts Act of a particular Court, but in light of Section 54, which provides that notwithstanding anything referred to in any other enactment, an appeal against the judgment and award made by the Reference Court shall lie only to the High Court. Order XLI is the procedural law which further provides that in what manner an appeal is to be filed, what grounds can be taken in an appeal and what procedure is to be adopted by the appellate court. ( 4 ) IT is trite law that any person who is a party to the original appeal or proceedings, if is aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the said Court, then, he can prefer an appeal, because, he has a right to file an appeal under the Code. A person who is not a party to the proceedings if feels aggrieved by any judgment or decree or any findings recorded in such judgment leading to the judgment, then, he can always prefer an appeal with the leave of the Court. In a case, where certain observations are made against a party or certain strictures are made, then, the party aggrieved can always make application to the appellate court for expunction of such observations or remarks. The right of appeal is a statutory right. It does not depend upon the circumstances under which the judgment is delivered. Under sub-section (2) of Section 96, a person who was not represented before the lower court can file an appeal against the original decree which was passed exparte. The right of appeal is a statutory right. It does not depend upon the circumstances under which the judgment is delivered. Under sub-section (2) of Section 96, a person who was not represented before the lower court can file an appeal against the original decree which was passed exparte. ( 5 ) WHEN we asked the learned counsel for the appellant as to why the person who is a party to the original proceedings or to the proceedings which are deemed to be original proceedings, is required to move an application for grant of leave for filing an appeal, the only submission is that as the Supreme Court has made such observations in the matter of U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad [supra], applications have been filed. For perusal of this Court, learned counsel for the appellant has cited some of the orders passed by other Division Benches of this Court, wherein, leave has been granted to file appeal. It was a statement at Bar that in most of the cases, acquiring body was a party before the Reference Court and despite that, they opted for leave and leave was granted by the High Court. We have gone through the said orders. Except in Civil Application No. 11796 of 2001, wherein, a reference is made to the judgment in the matter of U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra) other orders do not take into consideration the question that whether leave is required or not. In Civil Application No. 11796 of 2001, a submission was made by the counsel for the applicant/appellant that in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra), leave is required, the Court granted the prayer without looking into the facts that whether leave was required or not. It is also to be noted that the Court even did not record the facts that whether applicant before it was a party before the Reference Court or not. Even the argument was not raised before the Division Bench that even if the acquiring body was a party, then too it is required to obtain leave for filing an appeal. It is also to be noted that the Court even did not record the facts that whether applicant before it was a party before the Reference Court or not. Even the argument was not raised before the Division Bench that even if the acquiring body was a party, then too it is required to obtain leave for filing an appeal. ( 6 ) IN our considered opinion, the orders passed by the earlier Division Benches of this Court did not decide the question that a person who was a party before the Reference Court would still be required to obtain leave, specially in case a person proposing to file an appeal is the acquiring body for whose benefits, the land was acquired. ( 7 ) IN the matter of U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra), facts were as under:"a scheme was notified by the Avas Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 called Trans-Yamuna Grihasthan and Saran Yojna, Agra. It was a combination of a housing accommodation and street scheme. The finalized scheme was published under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam and the land of the owners was notified to be acquired. An award was made by the Land Acquisition Officer who adopted belting system for determining the market value and divided the land covered by the award into three belts fixing definite amount for each belt. In reference, the Tribunal determined the market value and enhanced the compensation. The High Court in first appeal doubled it nearly. It also awarded solatium at the rate of 30% on the amount of enhanced compensation and interest at the rate of 12% under sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The High Court decided the appeal on 18. 4. 1991. The owners filed the special leave petitions in the Supreme Court for grant of interest under Section 23 (1-A) added to the L. A. Act in 1984. The Board claimed to have come to know of these proceedings after the judgment of the High Court and filing of special leave petitions by the claimants and, therefore, it moved applications under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the High Court for the review of its order. The application was dismissed on 3. 12. The application was dismissed on 3. 12. 1992 as it was filed after a long delay without proper explanation and even the court fee paid was deficient. The High Court observed that even though this was brought to the notice of the counsel for the Board yet the deficiency was not made good. Another effort was made in 1993 but the Court refused to recall its order as it was not disputed that the court fee was not made good for a long time and even no application as contemplated under Section 149 of the CPC for extension of time was made. By virtue of section 3 (i) that has been introduced in the L. A. Act by the U. P. Act, the Board is a local authority for the purpose of the L. A. Act. The question which arose for determination was whether the L. A. Act confers any right on the Board to participate at the stage of determination of compensation for the land which is sought to be acquired under Section 55 of the U. P. Act read with the provisions of the L. A. Act, as modified by the Schedule to the U. P. Act and to assail such determination if the Board feels aggrieved by the same. " ( 8 ) FROM the facts, it would clearly appear that no notice was issued to the acquiring body under Section 50 sub-section (2), nor acquiring body was ever noticed by the Reference Court. After the High Court enhanced the amount and the aggrieved claimants again went to the Supreme Court for further enhancement, the acquiring body appeared before the Court and submitted that they were entitled to be heard by the Collector, they were also entitled to the notice by the Reference Court. The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the application submitted by the Board for being impleaded as respondent in the appeals. Majority of the Honble Judges of the Apex Court allowed the application submitted by the Board for being impleaded as respondent in the appeals filed by the land owners before it and directed that the Board be impleaded as respondent in the appeals filed by the land owners in the High Court. Majority of the Honble Judges of the Apex Court allowed the application submitted by the Board for being impleaded as respondent in the appeals filed by the land owners before it and directed that the Board be impleaded as respondent in the appeals filed by the land owners in the High Court. Judgment of the Allahabad High Court, so also the judgment in the review application filed against the judgment were set aside and the matters were remitted to the High Court for a decision in accordance with law. The questions posed before the Supreme Court were that what shall be the legal position and in cases where; [i] no notice was given to the local authority under sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act and as a result, the local authority could not appear before the Collector to adduce evidence; [ii] notice was served on the local authority and in response to the said notice, the local authority appeared before the Collector and; [iii] notice was served on the local authority, but in spite of such notice, the local authority failed to appear and adduce evidence before the Collector. While discussing the issue, the Supreme Court in para-21 of its judgment stated as under:-"we may now come to the stage of the proceedings before the court in a reference under Section 18 of the L. A. Act made at the instance of a person having interest in the land being acquired. At this stage also Section 50 (2) of the L. A. Act envisages that the local authority has a right to appear and adduce evidence before the court. This right is independent of the right that is available to the local authority to appear and adduce evidence before the Collector. Even though the local authority had failed to appear before the Collector in spite of notice or had appeared in response to notice and had adduced evidence, the local authority may consider it necessary to adduce evidence to rebut the evidence adduced by the person who has sought the reference and to defend the award made by the Collector. Failure to give notice at this stage would result in denial of the said right of the local authority. Failure to give notice at this stage would result in denial of the said right of the local authority. Before we consider the remedy that is available for seeking redress against the denial of this right we may examine whether the local authority has a right to be impleaded as a party in the proceedings before the reference court. That raises the question whether the local authority can be regarded as a necessary or a proper party. The law is well settled that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively and a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision of the question involved in the proceeding. [ See Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue. ] A local authority for whom land is being acquired has a right to participate in the acquisition proceedings in the matter of determination of the amount of compensation while they are pending before the Collector and to adduce evidence in the said proceedings. While it is precluded from seeking a reference against the award of the Collector it can defend the award and oppose the enhancement of the amount of compensation sought before the reference court by the person interested in the land. Moreover the local authority has a right to appear and adduce evidence before the reference court. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that the presence of the local authority is necessary for the decision of he question involved in the proceedings before the reference court and it is a proper party in the proceedings. The local authority is, therefore, entitled to be impleaded as a party in the proceedings before the reference court. " ( 9 ) FROM the above observations made in para-21 of the judgment, it would clearly appear that the local authority has a right to appear and adduce evidence before the Reference Court and having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that presence of the local authority was necessary for decision on the question involved in the proceedings before the Reference Court and it was a proper party in the proceedings. The Supreme Court observed that the local authority was, therefore, entitled to be impleaded as a party in the proceedings before the Reference Court. In para-24, while summing up the conclusions in sub-para [7], the Supreme Court observed that in the event of enhancement of the amount of compensation by the reference court, if the government does not file an appeal, the local authority can file an appeal against the award in the High Court after obtaining leave of the court. Observations made by the Supreme Court in sub-para (7) of para-24 are interpreted by the learned counsel to mean that in every case, where acquiring body or local authority is aggrieved by the judgment and award, then, it can file an appeal after obtaining the leave. The argument, in our considered opinion is misconceived and not tenable. In para-22, the Supreme Court has observed that in case amount of compensation has been been enhanced by the court and no appeal is filed by the government, local authority, if adversely affected by such enhancement may file an appeal with the leave of the court. If these were the only observations by the Supreme Court, then, that would have been the end of the matter. Rule of interpretation is that the observation made by any court or the decision of a court is not to be read as law and the observations cannot be read out of context. The observations are to be read as a whole and then only, the observations made by the court are to be appreciated and understood. In para-22, the Supreme Court further observed that this right (right to file an appeal) of the local authority does not depend on its being impleaded as party in the proceedings before the Reference Court. Even if the local authority is not impleaded as party before the Reference Court, it can file an appeal against the award after obtaining leave if it is prejudicially affected by the award. If these observations made by the Supreme Court are appreciated in their true perspective, then, we would be justified in saying that the Supreme Court was taking into consideration two different situations; first situation was that the local authority was party and the second situation was where the local authority was not a party. If these observations made by the Supreme Court are appreciated in their true perspective, then, we would be justified in saying that the Supreme Court was taking into consideration two different situations; first situation was that the local authority was party and the second situation was where the local authority was not a party. The observations of the Supreme Court that the right of the local authority does not depend on its being impleaded as party in the proceedings before the Reference Court would simply mean that if it is a party before the Reference Court, then, it can always file an appeal being a party to the proceedings. But the right would not be curtailed or adversely affected, because, it is not a party, as local authority can always file an appeal with the leave of the Court. It is trite that any person who has been joined to the proceedings either as necessary party or proper party, would have a right to file an appeal if he is aggrieved by the judgment and decree or the award of the learned subordinate court. No law says that a person who is a party to the proceedings would have no right of an appeal if the right of appeal is provided by the Statute. In a case where a person is joined as necessary party, then, his presence is necessary before the court for effective adjudication of the dispute because in absence of such necessary party, effective decree cannot be granted. Proper party would be a party without whom an effective decree can be passed, but whose presence is required or is necessary to give an absolute and complete adjudication in the matter. The moment a person is joined as a party to a proceedings, then, he is not joined simply as an ornament to the proceedings, but is joined with an understanding that either he is necessary party or proper party. If according to the judgment of the Supreme Court, presence of local authority/acquiring body is necessary for proper adjudication, because, local authority has a right to lead evidence and defend the award made by the Collector, then, it would certainly have a right to file an appeal. In case, it simply takes part in the proceedings without even being joined as a party, then, it can file an appeal with the leave of the court. In case, it simply takes part in the proceedings without even being joined as a party, then, it can file an appeal with the leave of the court. The observations made by the Supreme Court were in a different context. The judgment nowhere says that the person who has been joined to the proceedings as necessary or proper party would have a right of appeal with the leave of the court only. ( 10 ) IN our considered opinion, all these applications seeking leave to file appeal are misconceived. All these applications are rejected. Office is directed to proceed further in the matter. ( 11 ) I have read the judgment of my esteemed learned brother Mr. Justice R. S. Garg. In the aforesaid matter, I fully concur with the views expressed by him. Though, I have signed the judgment prepared by my learned brother Mr. Justice R. S. Garg, looking to the importance of the matter I would like to express my views in this matter as under. ( 12 ) IN this case, General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (for short ongc), the original opponent No. 2 has filed this Civil Application No. 7862 of 2004 seeking leave to file appeal. In First Appeal which has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 5. 11. 2004 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mehsana, in L. A. R. 3346 of 2003; in the impugned judgment, learned Civil Judge has allowed all the land references and awarded maximum price of the land in question at the rate of Rs. 57/- per sq. mts. From the record it appears that the appellant, herein, was already party in the L. A. R. 3346 of 2003 against the opponent No. 2. ( 13 ) IT is the case of the appellant that, though, it was a party in the lower court proceedings; it has right to file appeal. However, a practice has been prevalent in this Court that, though, the acquiring body which has right to file an appeal (when it is a party before the Reference Court), should file a separate application for leave to appeal under Land Acquisition Act regardless as to whether they were party before the Reference Court or not. However, a practice has been prevalent in this Court that, though, the acquiring body which has right to file an appeal (when it is a party before the Reference Court), should file a separate application for leave to appeal under Land Acquisition Act regardless as to whether they were party before the Reference Court or not. As the issue raises very important question of law and facts, and though, my learned brother has dealt with the same at length, I would like to express my views in this behalf. ( 14 ) THIS appeal is arising out of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). In this behalf I refer to Section 3 (b) of the Act which defines person interested. "section 3 (b): The expression "person interested" includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of the land under this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in a land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land. " ( 15 ) THE other relevant section is Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which provides reference to this Court. Section 18 (1) reads as under:-"section 18 (1): Reference to Court: (i)Any person interested who has not accepted the award may by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (ii) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken. " ( 16 ) FROM the record it appears that in the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court, in the matter of Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad Vs. Chandulal Shamaldas Patel, reported in (1971)3 SCC 821 , on Page 822 it is observed as under:-"certain lands belonging to first respondent were notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Government of Bombay by a notification dated February 19, 1959. The area in which the lands were situated had, thereafter, been alloted to the State of Gujarat after bifurcation of the State of Bombay under the State Reorganization Act, 1960. The area in which the lands were situated had, thereafter, been alloted to the State of Gujarat after bifurcation of the State of Bombay under the State Reorganization Act, 1960. A Divisional Commissioner of the State of Gujarat issued a notification under Section 6 on May 2, 1961. Both the notifications mentioned the purpose for acquisition of the land as "for school and neighbourhood work. " ( 17 ) THE notifications were challenged by the first respondent in a petition filed by him in the High Court of Gujarat on various grounds. It is not necessary to go into it. The petition was granted. ( 18 ) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment,the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad which was the forth respondent in the petition appealed before the Honble Supreme Court. In that case, the question arose as to the maintainability of the appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation before the Honble Apex Court. The Municipal Corporation was impleaded as a forth respondent before the High Court but no relief was claimed against the Municipal Corporation. The property, it is true, was notified for acquisition by the State Government for the use of Municipal Corporation after it was acquired by the government. But, the Honble Supreme Court held that it did not confer any interest in the Municipal Corporation so as to enable it to file an appeal against the order of the High Court, allowing the petition. In that context, the Honble Supreme Court observed that, "we fail to see as to what interest the Municipal Corporation has which would sustain an appeal made by it against the order of the High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent. " ( 19 ) THUS, the Honble Supreme Court held that the Corporation has no locus standi to file appeal under Section 4 as it did not confer any interest in it. Thus, the Honble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. ( 20 ) HOWEVER, as a subsequent judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of himalaya Tiles and Marble (P.) Ltd. Vs. Thus, the Honble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. ( 20 ) HOWEVER, as a subsequent judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of himalaya Tiles and Marble (P.) Ltd. Vs. Francis Victor Coutinho (dead) by LRs, reported in AIR 1980 SC 1118 where the Honble Supreme Court interpreted the word "person interested" in Section 18 of the Act as under: (Para7/ Page 1120)"it seems to us that the definition of a person interested given in section is an inclusive definition and must be liberally construed so as to embrace all persons who may be directly or indirectly interested either in the title to the land or in the quantum of compensation. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the lands were actually acquired for the purpose of the company and once the land vested in the Government after acquisition, it stood transferred to the company under the agreement entered into between the company and the Government. Thus, it cannot be said that the company had no claim in title to the land at all. Secondly, since under the agreement the Company had to pay the compensation, certainly, it was interested in seeing that a proper quantum of compensation was fixed so that it may not have to pay a very heavy amount of money. For this purpose, the company could undoubtedly appear and adduce evidence on the question of the quantum of compensation. " ( 21 ) AFTER referring to various judgments of the High Courts, in Para 13 at Page 1121 of the said judgment the Honble Supreme Court has observed as under:"thus, the preponderence of judicial opinion seems to favour the view that the definition of person interested must be liberally construed so as to include a body, local authority, or a company for whose benefit that land is acquired and who is bound under an agreement to pay the compensation. In our opinion, this view accords with the principles of equity of justice and good conscience. How can it be said that a person for whose benefit the land is acquired and who is to pay the compensation is not a person interested, even though, its stake may be extremely vital" For instance, the land acquisition proceedings may be held to be invalid and, thus, a person concerned is completely deprived of the benefit which is proposed to be given to him. Similarly, if such a person is not held by the Collector or a Court, he may have to pay a very heavy compensation which, in case if he is allowed to appear before a court, he could have satisfied that the compensation was far too heavy. Having regard to agree with the view taken by the Orissa High Court or even by the Calcutta High Court that a company, local authority or a person for whose benefit the land is acquired is not an interested person. We are satisfied that such a person is vitally interested both in the title to the property as, also, in the compensation to be paid. Therefore, as both these factors concern its future course of action and if decided against him, will seriously prejudice his rights. " ( 22 ) MOREOVER, in view of the decision of this Court referred above, we hold that the appellant was undoubtedly a person interested as contemplated by Section 18 (1) of the Act. ( 23 ) I may also refer the case of Union of India and others Vs. District Judge, Udhampur and Ors. , reported in (1994) 3 judgment Today 6629. On Page 7, the Honble Supreme Court has referred to the definition of "person interested" and also referred to the case of himalayan Tiles and Marbles (P) Ltd. Vs. Francis Vitocr Countinho (dead) by LRs and Ors. , on Page 8 Honble Supreme Court observed as under :"this view was reiterated in Neelagangabhai Vs. State of Karnataka [jt 1990 (2) SC 330 : (1990) 3 SCC 617 ]; Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. Ashok Singhal and Ors. [ (1991) Suppl. 2 SCC 419]; Union of India Vs. Sher Singh and Ors. [jt 1993 (3) SC 693 : (1993) 1 SCC 608 ] and Bihar State Electricity Board Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. [civil Appeal Nos. 1577-1600/94 dated February 21, 1994]. Thus, it is a settled law that the requisitioning authority is a person interested since it is interested in the fixation of the proper and just market value or compensation of the land acquired on its behalf as well as to see that the true extent of the land is acquired and is free from encumbrances. Thus, it is a settled law that the requisitioning authority is a person interested since it is interested in the fixation of the proper and just market value or compensation of the land acquired on its behalf as well as to see that the true extent of the land is acquired and is free from encumbrances. The participation in the proceedings by the local officers is to enable, not only the determination of the proper and just market value or compensation in their presence after laying necessary and relevant evidence but also to secure valid title to the land acquired so that Land Acquisition Officer and the Court determines just and proper and necessary party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. It is also the person interested under Section 2 (d) of the Act. " ( 24 ) ACCORDINGLY the view of the High Court that the appellants are not interested person is clearly illegal. It is accordingly set aside. ( 25 ) NOW I refer to the Constitution Bench judgment which my brother has referred in the case of U. P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi. The majority of the judges relied upon the case of Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. Vs. Francis Victor Countinho (dead) by LRs and other cases and the Honble Supreme Court has expressly overruled the judgment of the Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad Vs. Chandulal Shamaldas Patel in Para 18 at Page 342 and relied upon Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. s case. As my learned brother has gone through the same in detail I do not prefer to discuss the same. In view of the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of U. P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi and the view taken by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation is no longer a good law. ( 26 ) FROM the record it appears that the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court has been followed in the case of Abdul Rasak and Ors. Vs. Kerala Water Authority and Ors. , reported in (2002) 3 SCC 228 . ( 26 ) FROM the record it appears that the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court has been followed in the case of Abdul Rasak and Ors. Vs. Kerala Water Authority and Ors. , reported in (2002) 3 SCC 228 . ( 27 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, the reliance and submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is on several orders of the Division Bench of this Court where as per the practice, even though, the acquiring bodies are party, they are obliged to make application to seek leave to file appeal appears to be misconceived. The said practice is contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the judgments of the Apex Court which we have referred to above. Therefore, the said order of the Division Bench is not binding to this Court. It may be noted that one of the Division Bench has referred to the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of U. P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi, but, has not dealt with the other aspects in detail in this behalf. As this question pertains to the Land Acquisition Act and other matters we have dealt with the same at length. ( 28 ) IN view of the statutory provisions which I have referred and the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Himalayan Tiles and Marbles (P) Ltd. Vs. Francis Victor Countinho (dead) by LRs and Ors. , U. P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi. , Union of India and others Vs. District Judge, Udhampur and Ors. , and also, the latest one in the case of Abdul Rasak and Ors. Vs. Kerala Water Authority and Ors. , the following legal position emerges:" (i) If the acquiring body is not a party before the Reference Court,and if, it still desires to file appeal before this Court under Section 54 of the Act, then, it has to file a separate application for seeking leave to file appeal and, only then, this Court can grant its application in accordance with law. (ii) If the acquiring body is, already, a party before the Reference Court or District Court; it is not required or obliged to file a separate application for seeking leave to appeal and it can straightaway file appeal under Section 54 of the Act. (ii) If the acquiring body is, already, a party before the Reference Court or District Court; it is not required or obliged to file a separate application for seeking leave to appeal and it can straightaway file appeal under Section 54 of the Act. " ( 29 ) IN view of the above, the acquiring body has to follow the aforesaid legal position in this behalf. The appeals are held maintainable even without leave from the Court to file appeal. .