JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.N. Srivastava, J.—By way of this writ petition, GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, District Gautam Budh Nagar challenged impugned orders passed by the Additional District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar dated 17.10.2003 and 3.12.2003 in Reference No. 120 of 2002 arising out of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Mange Ram v. State. 2. In Reference No. 120 of 2002, statement of Ameen-Jai Kishan Sharma has already been recorded as a witness. An application has been moved by the petitioner to cross-examine Jai Kishan Sharma-Ameen (witness) on the ground that actually petitioner-Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority is the aggrieved authority and it is the GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY who will pay the compensation and, therefore, it has right to cross-examine all the witnesses in order to get the compensation determined by the authority competent. Said application was rejected by the Additional District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that since the petitioner-Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority is the acquiring body who will be affected in case Ameen (witness) is not cross-examined for the purposes of determination of correct compensation as the payment of compensation has to be made by the petitioner. It is further urged by Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner-Greater NOIDA Industrial .Development Authority, that the impugned order rejecting application of the petitioner to cross-examine relevant witness (Ameen) suffers from error of law apparent on the face of record and is liable to be set-aside and the petitioner may be permitted to cross-examine concerned Ameen (witness) and other witnesses who may appear in the Witness Box in the matter of determination of compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. He also made a statement at the bar that objection of petitioner has already been filed in References as back as on 26.3.2002 including in Reference No. 120 of 2002. He relied upon case laws reported in AIR 1995 SC 724 , U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi, and AIR 1966 Raj 229 (V 58 C 59), Sohanlal and others v. Gulab Chand, in support of his case. 5. He relied upon case laws reported in AIR 1995 SC 724 , U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi, and AIR 1966 Raj 229 (V 58 C 59), Sohanlal and others v. Gulab Chand, in support of his case. 5. In reply to the same, Sri Kamal Singh Yadav, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 4, on the strength of Paragraph-16 of the counter-affidavit, stated that in case the Court set asides the orders dated 17.10.2003 and 3.12.2003 and directs Court below to permit cross-examination of DW-1, Respondent No. 4 has no objection. He lastly urged that as the matter is pending since 2002, the same may be directed to be decided as early as possible. 6. Learned Standing Counsel also supported impugned orders. 7. Considered arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 8. Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is relevant for the purposes of this case and the same is being quoted below for ready reference : “50(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.” 9. Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act makes it clear that in any proceeding held before the Collector or the Court the local authority or company concerned may appear and adduce evidence for determining the amount of compensation. 10. The question what are the rights of the local authority has been considered by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the Judgment reported in AIR 1995 SC 724 (supra). In Paragraph-25 of the judgment, the Apex Court has laid down the law in this regard, the same is being quoted below : “25. To sum up, our conclusions are : 1. Section 50(2) of the L.A. Act confers on a local authority for whom land is being acquired a right to appear in the acquisition proceedings before the Collector and the reference Court and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. 2. To sum up, our conclusions are : 1. Section 50(2) of the L.A. Act confers on a local authority for whom land is being acquired a right to appear in the acquisition proceedings before the Collector and the reference Court and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. 2. The said right carries with it the right to be given adequate notice by the Collector as well as the reference Court before whom acquisition proceedings are pending on the date on which the matter of determination of compensation will be taken up. 3. The proviso to S. 50(2) only precludes a local authority from seeking a reference but it does not deprive the local authority which feels aggrieved by the determination of the amount of compensation by the Collector or by the reference Court to invoke the remedy under Art. 226 of the Constitution as well as the remedies available under the L.A. Act. 4. In the event of denial of the right conferred by S. 50(2) on account of failure of the Collector to serve notice of the acquisition proceedings the local authority can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 5. Even when notice has been served on the local authority the remedy under Art. 226 of the Constitution would be available to the local authority on grounds on which judicial review is permissible under Art. 226. 6. The local authority 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 that regard. 7. 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. 8. In an appeal by the person having an interest in land seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the reference Court, the local authority should be impleaded as a party and I entitled to be served notice of the said appeal. This would apply to an appeal in the High Court as well as in this Court. 9. In an appeal by the person having an interest in land seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the reference Court, the local authority should be impleaded as a party and I entitled to be served notice of the said appeal. This would apply to an appeal in the High Court as well as in this Court. 9. Since a company for whom land is being acquired has the same right as a local authority under S. 50(2), whatever has been said with regard to a local authority would apply to a company too. 10. The matters which stand finally concluded will, however, not be re-opened.” 11. Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority-petitioner may be the affected party as it has already filed objection in Reference proceeding in the matter of determining compensation, it may examine witness and cross examine any witness examined on behalf of any of parties to test the correctness of the statement of such witness. Thus, the local authority or a company which pays compensation is entitled to cross-examine Ameen (witness of State) or other witnesses examined to determine compensation. 12. Section 138 of the Evidence Act also makes it clear that an adverse party is entitled to cross-examine a witness if the statement of the witness affects his right in examination-in-chief to test the correctness of statement of witness. In the present is Greater NOIDA may be an affected party in the matter of determination of compensation and, therefore, it is entitled to cross-examine Ameen (witness) in the matter of determining compensation. 13. Section 138 of the Evidence Act is being reproduced below for ready reference: “138. Order of examinations.—Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief.” 14. In view of the discussions made above, the finding recorded by the Additional District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, while rejecting the Application of petitioner-Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority to allow it to cross-examine witness (Ameen-Jai Kishan Sharma) suffers from error of law apparent on the face of record. In view of the discussions made above, the finding recorded by the Additional District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, while rejecting the Application of petitioner-Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority to allow it to cross-examine witness (Ameen-Jai Kishan Sharma) suffers from error of law apparent on the face of record. Greater NOIDA, the authority which is liable to pay compensation, has every right to cross-examine all the witnesses even of the State if anything stated by the witness affects its right before the Court in reference proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. 15. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4 has rightly made statement at the Bar that in case cross-examination is permitted, he has no objection. 16. In view of the above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned orders passed by the Additional District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar dated 17.10.2003 and 3.12.2003 are quashed. Application filed by petitioner-Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority in reference proceeding to cross-examine witness (Ameen-Jai Kishan Sharma) is allowed and petitioner is permitted to cross-examine witnesses in Reference No. 120 of 2002 and in other connected References. 17. In view of the prayer made by Sri Kamal Singh Yadav, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4, I direct that the Reference No. 120 of 2002 shall be decided within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 18. No order as to cost. ———