ORDER A.S. BOPANNA, J.—The appellant-society who is the beneficiary of the acquisition in respect of different extents of the property in Sy. Nos. 20, 21/1 and 21/2 of Sathagalli village, Mysore, is in this intra-Court appeal assailing the order dated 22.11.2010 passed in W.P. Nos. 25480-82/2009 (LA-RES). By the said order, the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. 2. The brief facts are that in respect of the said acquisition, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein who are the land losers had sought for reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation. Accordingly, the respective references were registered as LAC Nos. 379, 381 and 382 of 1998 before the II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Mysore. The appellant herein who is the beneficiary of the acquisition was not impleaded as party respondent to the said proceedings. The Reference Court by its judgment and award dated 28.2.2009 has enhanced the market value of the acquired property to Rs. 6,09,840/- per acre, as against the market value of Rs. 50,000/- per acre determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. The appellant-society were thereafter informed about the said enhancement by the fourth respondent herein, who was party to the said proceedings, by their communication dated 17.6.2009. In this regard, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have also levied execution petitions in Nos. 502, 503 and 504 of 2009. It is in that context, the appellant herein had questioned the said common judgment dated 28.2.2009 by filing the said writ petitions. The learned single Judge has rejected the contention of the appellant-society herein about the lack of opportunity in the proceedings before the Reference Court and has also held that the remedy would not lie in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The appellant-society has, therefore, presented the instant appeals. 3. Heard Sri Subramanya Jois, learned senior counsel representing Sri Srinivasa Gowda, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B. Veerappa, learned Government Advocate for respondent No. 4. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 though served have remained unrepresented. 4. A perusal of the impugned order passed in the writ petition would indicate that the issue relating to the lack of notice as contended by the appellant has been examined by the learned single Judge without reference to Section 20(c) of the Land Acquisition Act (Karnataka amendment) (for short the ‘Act’). 1 to 3 though served have remained unrepresented. 4. A perusal of the impugned order passed in the writ petition would indicate that the issue relating to the lack of notice as contended by the appellant has been examined by the learned single Judge without reference to Section 20(c) of the Land Acquisition Act (Karnataka amendment) (for short the ‘Act’). It is in that context, the learned single Judge appears to have arrived at the conclusion that the denial of opportunity in the context of violation of principles of natural justice cannot be accepted at this distant point of time. However, with regard to the scope of Section 20(c) of the Act and the need for issue of notice to the beneficiary as contemplated therein, the matter need not be adverted to in detail since the said aspect has already been considered and decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer vs. Chandrasekaragowda, ILR 1985 (2) Kant. 3044, wherein it has been observed as hereunder: “8. The Supreme Court of India, elucidating Clause (c) of Section 20 of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act has observed in N.G.E.F. Ltd. vs. State of Mysore and others in para-3 of the Judgment thus: “It is obvious that Section 20 (c) makes it obligatory for the Court to issue notice ‘to the person or authority for whom the acquisition is made.’ In the present case the entire grievance of the appellant is that no such notice was issued at all with the result that the appellant had no opportunity to appear in Court, contest the claim of the fourth respondent regarding increased compensation, adduce evidence and otherwise prove that the amendment (sic) ordered by the Land Acquisition Officer was adequate. The absence of the appellant before the Civil Court had a disastrous impact on it because while Land Acquisition Officer had ordered a sum of Rs. 46,000/- by way of Compensation, the Civil Judge raised it to Rs. 2,39,000/-.” Further, the Supreme Court has observed in the same para thus: “All that we need say is that an imperative obligation to give notice and hear the appellant Petitioner before the High Court, and on the strength of Section 20 referred to above, the High Court should have allowed this Writ Petition and set aside the decision of the Civil Judge………….” 9. Similar arguments were addressed before us by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Gadag for whom the acquisition of land was made. No notice was sent to the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Gadag, and the Learned Civil Judge in the absence of the concerned party and without notice to the concerned party has enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs. 89,467.88 P, to Rs. 10,00,627.60 P. In the circumstances, it is obvious that the Learned Civil Judge has failed to perform the imperative duty cast on him in issuing the notice to the person for whom the acquisition was made, on the facts of the present case, to the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Gadag and hence, we are left with no alternative but to set aside the Judgment and award and remit the case back 10 the learned Civil Judge, for fresh hearing.” 5. In the light of the above, it would be clear that it is a statutory requirement that the beneficiary of the acquisition who would ultimately be liable for payment of compensation is required to be heard before the claim for enhancement of compensation is considered. In the instant case, when the appellant-society had not been notified and when the appellant-society had assailed the award immediately after they had knowledge of the same, the interest of the appellant-society was required to be protected in accordance with law. Hence the learned single Judge was not justified in that regard. 6. On the aspect as to whether the said award regarding which the appellant-society had claimed to be aggrieved was to be assailed in an appeal under Section 54 of the Act as observed by the learned single Judge, the said aspect has also not been examined by the learned single Judge in the light of the decisions which were cited on behalf of the appellant in the case of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Gyan Devi (Dead) by LRs. and others, (1995) 2 SCC 326 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the decision of this Court in the case of Bhimashankar Co-operative Sugar Factory Limited vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer & Assistant Commissioner and others, ILR (2004) 4 Kant. 4878. and others, (1995) 2 SCC 326 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the decision of this Court in the case of Bhimashankar Co-operative Sugar Factory Limited vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer & Assistant Commissioner and others, ILR (2004) 4 Kant. 4878. As noticed, in the instant case, the appellant-society herein had not been notified about the proceedings relating to the enhancement of compensation and in that regard, when the requirement of law relating to issue of notice had not been complied and the appellant-society herein were not even impleaded as respondent to the said proceedings, the ultimate award passed would not be sustainable though not with reference to the merits of the contention on which it has been decided. The judgment would stand vitiated for non-compliance of the legal requirement. 7. In that view of the matter, the common judgment 28.2.2009 and the consequent awards are liable to be set aside and the reference proceedings in LAC Nos. 379, 381 and 382 of 1998 are to be restored for reconsideration of the same in the presence of the appellant-society as a party respondent to the said proceedings. However, the Reference Court will also have to be directed to reconsider the matter expeditiously. 8. In the result, the following: ORDER (i) W.A. Nos. 2089-91/2011 are allowed and the order dated 22.11.2009 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 25480-82/2009 (LA-RES) is set aside. (ii) Consequently, the common judgment and award dated 28.2.2009 passed in LAC Nos. 379, 381 and 382/1998 are also set aside. (iii) The II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mysore, is directed to restore LAC Nos. 379, 381 and 382 of 1998 on file, issue notice to the claimants, reconsider and dispose of the reference in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six months from the date of service of notice on the claimants. (iv) The appellant and the fourth respondent herein shall, however, appear before the Reference Court on 2.11.2011 without further notice as the first date of appearance, whereupon the Reference Court shall permit the appellant herein to come on record as respondent No. 2 to the reference petitions. (v) Parties to bear their own costs. Misc. W. Nos. 3418/2011, 3052/2011 and 3053/2011 are disposed of as unnecessary.