Judgment 1. In this case, the petitioner has called in question the validity of the judgment and award dated 31.03.2011 in LAC No.58/2007 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Maddur, whereby the Court below has enhanced the compensation from Rs.17/- per sq.ft. to Rs.250/- per sq.ft. 2. Petitioner is a Corporation established under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is a State Government undertaking. It was established with the object of executing the project relating to road development in the State of Karnataka. It takes up the projects from Public Works and Inland Water Transport Departments for the construction of roads and expansion projects. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Mandya District had issued notification dated 17.01.2005 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') for acquisition of land at Gejjalagere village, Maddur taluk, Mandya District for widening of the Bangalore - Mysore State Highway No.17. This was followed by a final notification dated 16.01.2006. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation at Rs.17/- per sq.ft. Being dissatisfied with the award, the first respondent filed an application (Annexure 'B') under Section 18 (1) of the Act for determining higher market value. The second respondent referred the matter to the Civil Court on 22.06.2007. The Civil Court registered the reference as LAC No.58/2007. It has enhanced the compensation at Rs.250/- per sq.ft. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the lands have been acquired for the widening of the State Highway No.17. The notification issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act shows that the petitioner is the executing agency of the work. The petitioner is allocated with the funds by the State Government. The compensation amount is paid through the petitioner being the executing agency. Thus, the petitioner is interested in the reference. The order of reference does not contain the name of the petitioner. Petitioner had no notice of the proceedings pending before the Court. The name of the petitioner finds a place in the award as respondent No.1. Since the petitioner is interested person in the reference, the Land Acquisition Officer ought to have included its name in the reference and the reference Court ought to have issued the notice under Section 20(b) and (c) of the Act to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents have sought to justify the impugned award. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents have sought to justify the impugned award. 6. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned Counsel made at the Bar and perused the records of the trial Court. 7. As stated earlier, the petitioner is a State Government undertaking. It was established mainly with the object of executing the project relating to development of roads in the State of Karnataka. The State Government allocates funds to the petitioner for executing the project of construction or extension of roads. The compensation is paid to the land owners through the petitioner. 8. The notifications issued by the Deputy Commissioner proposing to acquire lands shows that the acquisition is for the purpose of widening of State Highway No.17 by the petitioner herein. The relevant portion of the notification is as under: (“Language”) 9. The Land Acquisition Officer passed award determining the compensation at Rs.17/- per sq.ft. The 1st respondent filed an application as per Annexure 'B' under Section 18(1) seeking reference for determination of higher compensation. In the application, the name of the petitioner has not been included. The names of the second respondent and the Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department are found in the application. On receipt of the reference, the court below registered the case as LAC.No.58/2007. The order sheet does not contain the name of the petitioner. It contains the name of Public Works Department, Mandya and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mandya. The court below issued notice to the parties on 13.07.2008. The file does not contain the notices issued to Public Works Department and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mandya. The file contains vakalath of the learned Counsel for the claimant dated 09.10.2006. 10. The Reference Court has passed an award as per Annexure 'C' dated 31.03.2011. Surprisingly, the name of the petitioner finds a place in the cause title of the judgment and award as respondent No.1. The claimant has filed execution case in E.P.No.23/2012 for the execution of the award against the petitioner and respondent No.2. 11. 10. The Reference Court has passed an award as per Annexure 'C' dated 31.03.2011. Surprisingly, the name of the petitioner finds a place in the cause title of the judgment and award as respondent No.1. The claimant has filed execution case in E.P.No.23/2012 for the execution of the award against the petitioner and respondent No.2. 11. Section 18(1) of the Act states that any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Deputy Commissioner for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. 12. The Deputy Commissioner has to mention the names of the persons whom he has reason to think interested in such land under Section 19(b). Notice under Section 20(b) has to be issued to all persons interested in the objection except such of those who have consented without protest to receive payment of compensation awarded. Section 20(c) states that if the acquisition is not made for the Government, the Court shall serve notice to the person or authority for whom it is made. Section 50(2) of the Act confers a right to a local authority or a company for whom land is acquired to appear before a Deputy Commissioner or in the Court and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. This provision represents statutory embodiment of one of the facets of natural justice. 13. The Apex Court in Himalaya Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. v. Francis Victor Coutinho (dead) by LRs., AIR 1980 SC 1118 , has held that 'a person interested' given in Section 18 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. Thus, the definition of 'person interested' in Section 18 must be construed so as to include a body, local authority or a company for whose benefit the land is acquired and who is bound under an agreement to pay compensation. 14. In Neelagangabai and another Vs. Thus, the definition of 'person interested' in Section 18 must be construed so as to include a body, local authority or a company for whose benefit the land is acquired and who is bound under an agreement to pay compensation. 14. In Neelagangabai and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1990 SC 1321 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed reopening of the award proceedings when the beneficiary therein was not notified by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award proceedings. It has been held thus:- "3. Admittedly the land was acquired for the purpose of the respondent-Corporation and the burden of payment of the compensation is on the Corporation. In this background the High Court has held that it was mandatory for the court of reference to have caused a notice served on the respondent-Corporation before proceeding to determine the compensation claim. Since no notice was given to the respondent-Corporation and it was thus deprived of an opportunity to place its case before the court, the judgment rendered in the reference case was illegal and not binding on the Corporation. We are in agreement with this view." 15. In Agra Development Authority Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others - (2001) 2 SCC 646 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the land was acquired at the cost of local development authority, it was mandatory for Land Acquisition Authority to issue notice to such local authority and give it an opportunity to adduce evidence for the purposes of determining the compensation amount; that the local authority was aware of the proceedings and had participated in meetings with Government and Collector, was not sufficient compliance with Section 50. 16. In Neyvely Lignite Corporation Limited Vs. Special Tahsildar (LA) - (1995) 1 SCC 221 , the Apex Court has held as under:- "12. It is true that Section 50(2) of the Act gives to the local authority or the company right to adduce evidence before the Collector or in the reference under Section 18 as it was specifically stated that in any proceedings held before the Collector or the Court, the local authority or the company may appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. However, it has no right to seek reference. However, it has no right to seek reference. Based thereon, the contention is that the limited right of adduction of evidence for the purpose of determining the compensation does not carry with it the right to participate in the proceedings or right to be heard or to file an appeal under Section 54. We cannot limit the operation of Section 3(b) in conjunction with sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act within a narrow compass. The right given under sub-section (2) of Section 50 is in addition to and not in substitution of or in derogation to all the incidental, logical and consequential rights flowing from the concept of fair and just procedure consistent with the principles of natural justice. The consistent thread that runs through all the decisions of this Court starting from Himalayan Tiles case is that the beneficiary, i.e., local authority or company, a cooperative society registered under the relevant State law, or statutory authority is a person interested to determine just and proper compensation for the acquired land and is an aggrieved person. It flows from it that the beneficiary has the right to be heard by the Collector or the Court. If the compensation is enhanced it is entitled to canvass its correctness by filing an appeal or defend the award of the Collector. If it is not made a party, it is entitled to seek leave of the court and file the appeal against the enhanced award and decree of the Civil Court under Section 26 or of the judgment and decree under Section 54 or is entitled to file writ petition under Article 226 and assail its legality or correctness. When the award made under Section 11 of the Collector is vitiated by fraud, collusion or corruption, the beneficiary is entitled to challenge it in the writ petition apart from the settled law that the conduct of the Collector or Civil Judge is amenable to disciplinary enquiry and appropriate action. These are very valuable and salutary rights. Moreover in the language of Order1 Rule 10 CPC, in the absence of the beneficiary who ultimately is to bear the higher compensation, no complete and effectual determination of binding just and proper compensation to the acquired land would be made. So it is concomitantly a proper party if not a necessary party to the proceedings under Order1 Rule 10 CPC. So it is concomitantly a proper party if not a necessary party to the proceedings under Order1 Rule 10 CPC. The denial of the right to a person interested is in negation of fair and just procedure offending Article 14 of the Constitution." (emphasis supplied by me) 17. Therefore, a person interested can assail the judgment and award of the reference Court by filing a writ petition inspite of availability of alternative remedy if it is not made a party. 18. In the instant case, the lands in question was acquired for widening of the road by the petitioner. This was made clear in the notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner for acquisition of the lands. The petitioner is the executing agency of the work. The burden of payment of compensation is on the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is a person interested entitled to be heard before the reference could be determined. 19. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in many cases, at least 40% of the lands notified for acquisition are Government lands for which compensation is not payable. In an earlier proceedings before this Court in W.A.Nos.5508/2011 and 15662 to 15673 of 2011 (between the Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Development Corporation Limited Vs. Madappa and Others) arising out of the same notification, the Division Bench has directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer of Mandya to resurvey the notified lands to ascertain whether it includes Government lands for determining the compensation. After resurvey, it was found that atleast 40% of the land is Government land. In the instant case, the notified lands may consist of Government land. Had the Court below granted an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the proceedings, it would have pointed out as to whether the notified land includes Government land. 20. There is considerable force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The Special Land Acquisition Officer ought to have mentioned the name of the petitioner in the order of reference since the lands have been acquired by the State Government for widening of the National Highway No.17 by the petitioner. It cannot be disputed that petitioner has to pay the compensation for the acquisition of the lands and the amount is payable from the public exchequer. I am of the view that the reference Court ought to have heard the petitioner before the determination of compensation. It cannot be disputed that petitioner has to pay the compensation for the acquisition of the lands and the amount is payable from the public exchequer. I am of the view that the reference Court ought to have heard the petitioner before the determination of compensation. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Court below cannot be sustained. 21. The writ petition is allowed in part. The judgment and award at Annexure 'C' dated 31.03.2011 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 30.10.2013. No costs.