JUDGMENT :- ADMIT. Heard forthwith with the consent of the parties. Respondents waive service of final hearing. 2. The appellant in First Appeal No. 91/2010 is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court on 13th April, 2006 in Land Acquisition Case No. 370/2000, whereby the reference preferred by the respondent No.1 was partly allowed and the compensation was enhanced and fixed at Rs.60,173/- (Rs. Sixty Thousand One Hundred Seventy Three Only) together with other statutory benefits. 3. The appellant in First Appeal No. 92/2010 is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court on 20th April, 2006 in Land Acquisition Case No. 344/2000, whereby the reference preferred by the respondent No. 1 was partly allowed and the compensation was enhanced and fixed at Rs. 73,181/- (Rs. Seventy Three Thousand One Hundred Eighty One Only) together with other statutory benefits. 4. Since the points for consideration are identical in both the first appeals, the appeals are taken up for final hearing and the same are being disposed of by a common judgment. 5. There is no dispute that the appellant was the acquiring body and was not a party to the proceeding under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act filed by the respondent No.1 before the Reference Court. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that being the acquiring body the appellant is interested party in such proceedings, as the amount has to be paid by the appellant. 6. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that as such the appellant did not get an opportunity to defend the claim of the respondent No. 1 for enhancement of compensation. It is further submitted that in similar matters, the Division Bench of this Court has remanded the matter for fresh consideration subject to some terms. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that great prejudice would occasion to the respondent No.1 in case the matter is remanded as he has already withdrawn the amount and in any event the respondent No.1 was not at fault as the appellant could have very well filed an application to be a party to the reference proceedings as admittedly the Land Acquisition Officer was a party to such proceedings. 8. Having heard the learned counsel and on perusal of the records, the following point for consideration arise in the present appeals. 8. Having heard the learned counsel and on perusal of the records, the following point for consideration arise in the present appeals. "Whether the judgment passed by the Reference Court stands vitiated as the appellant was not a party to the reference proceedings?" 9. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (1995) 2 SCC 326, in the case of U. P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Gyan Devi (Dead) by Lrs. and others, has held at para 24— "24. 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 section 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 Article 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 section 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 Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. Even when notice has been served on the local authority the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution would be available to the local authority on grounds on which judicial review is permissible under Article 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. 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 is 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 section 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 reopened." 10. In the case of Agra Development Authority vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others, reported in (2001) 2 SCC 646 considered the same question and held at para 7. "7. ............................... What is required by section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act is that the body for whom the property is being acquired is given an opportunity to appear and adduce evidence for the purposes of determining the amount of compensation. Nothing could be shown to us that this had been done. On this point the matter requires to be sent back to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for re-fixing compensation payable." 11. In the judgment reported in (2004) 12 SCC 96 in the case of NTPC Ltd. vs. State of Bihar and others, the Apex Court has held at paras 12 and 13. "12. In our view, as the appellants were entitled to be impleaded in the reference proceedings, the High Court was in error in not setting aside the awards and referring the cases back to the Reference Court with a direction that they be impleaded. "12. In our view, as the appellants were entitled to be impleaded in the reference proceedings, the High Court was in error in not setting aside the awards and referring the cases back to the Reference Court with a direction that they be impleaded. The fact that amounts have been enhanced, shows that prejudice has been caused to the appellants. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment except to the extent that it directs that in all pending references the appellants will be impleaded as parties. The awards made by the Reference Court in 492 cases, where the amounts have been enhanced, are set aside. These cases are remitted back to the Reference Court. The appellants shall be deemed to have been brought on record in all these cases as well as all other pending cases. The reference Court shall try to dispose of the references as expeditiously as possible. The statement of witnesses already recorded on behalf of the claimants need not be recorded afresh. However, the appellants shall have a right to cross-examine the witnesses, if they so desire. For that purpose those witnesses shall be recalled. If, however, those witnesses cannot be recalled for a valid reason e.g. because they have died or cannot be found then their statements shall not be excluded from consideration and shall be read in evidence. All claimants shall also be entitled to adduce further evidence, if they so desire. The appellants will be entitled to adduce evidence if they so desire. 13. We further direct that if the enhanced compensation has been paid to the claimants then the same shall not be recalled but shall finally be adjusted in the amount which may be fixed by the Reference Court. It goes without saying that if the enhanced compensation has not been paid, then the same shall not be paid." 12. Thus there can be no dispute that the appellants were entitled to be parties to the reference proceedings filed by the respondent No. 1. It was the duty of the respondent No. 3 to disclose the name of the Acquiring Body to the Reference Court whilst making the reference. 13. In identical matters in First Appeal No. 1260/2006 and First Appeal No. 877/2009 this Court has remanded the matters back for adjudicating the reference afresh after making the Acquiring Body as a party to the proceedings. 14. 13. In identical matters in First Appeal No. 1260/2006 and First Appeal No. 877/2009 this Court has remanded the matters back for adjudicating the reference afresh after making the Acquiring Body as a party to the proceedings. 14. Shri Kalwaghe, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 in both the First Appeals bearing Nos. 91/2010 and 92/2010 states that the respondent No. 111 and owner has already withdrawn the amount of compensation as per the judgment of the Reference Court, upon furnishing solvent surety. The said withdrawal is made subject to final adjudication by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 370/2000 and Land Acquisition Case No. 344/2000. 15. Subject to this, the judgment dated 13th April, 2006 in L.A.C. No. 370/2000 and the judgment dated 20th April, 2006 in L.A.C. No. 344/2000 are quashed and set aside. The proceedings under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act are restored to the respective file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Buldhana to decide the reference afresh after making the appellant as party to such proceedings and allowing them to file fresh written statement and proceed with the trial in accordance with law. The appeals are accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 16. As the matters are old and are being sent back, the Courts below shall endeavour to decide the reference proceedings as early as possible and in any case within the period of six months. 17. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. Appeals allowed.