ORDER 1. All the aforesaid appeals having common question are being disposed of by the common order. S. Case Party Name Award Reference No. No. dated Court 1. 282/1996 Madhya Pradesh Housing Board 27/02/96 2nd Additional v. District Judge, Braj Bihari Agarwal Raipur 2. 283/1996 Madhya Pradesh Housing Board 27/02/96 2nd Additional v. District Judge, Madanlal & another Raipur 3. 284/1996 Madhya Pradesh Housing Board 27/02/96 2nd Additional v. District Judge, Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & another Raipur 4. 285/1996 Madhya Pradesh Housing Board 27/02/96 2nd Additional v. District Judge, Pramod Kumar Raipur 5. 286/1996 Madhya Pradesh Housing Board 27/02/96 2nd Additional v. District Judge, Laxmi Devi & others Raipur 6. 287/1996 Madhya Pradesh Housing Board 27/02/96 2nd Additional v. District Judge, Chandra Shekhar Baghel Raipur 7. 288/1996 Madhya Pradesh Housing Board 27/02/96 2nd Additional v. District Judge, Ram Kumar Sao Raipur 8. 289/1996 Madhya Pradesh Housing Board 27/02/96 2nd Additional v. District Judge, Smt. Chanda Devi Kashyap Raipur 9. 291/1996 Madhya Pradesh Housing Board 27/02/96 2nd Additional v. District Judge, Smt. Draupadi Devi Verma Raipur 2. In aforesaid appeals, the 2nd Additional District Judge, Raipur has passed the award impugned. Land Acquisition Officer has assessed the cost of land and has awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 86,000/- per acre. By enhancing the rate, Court below has awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 6/- per sq. feet i.e. about Rs. 2,61,360/- per acre thereby increased the amount of award by 3 times. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. At the outset learned counsel for the appellant submits that land has been acquired at the instance of local body i.e. present appellant, Madhya Pradesh Housing Board, for public purpose i.e. for constructing the Colony. Present appellant is require to pay/satisfy the award. Reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'). Learned counsel further submits that as per sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act, reference Court was required to hear and provide opportunity for adducing evidence before passing the award especially when it has been substantially enhanced. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance in the matter of UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi (Dead) by LRs. and another, etc. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance in the matter of UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi (Dead) by LRs. and another, etc. etc., AIR 1995 SC 724 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 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. Supreme Court observed in para 9 and 11 as follows: "9. The said right can be effectively exercised by the local authority only if it has information of the proceedings which are pending before the Collector as well as the reference Court In other words the right conferred under S. 50(2) of the L.A. Act carries with it the right to be given adequate notice by the Collector as well as the reference Court before whom the acquisition proceedings are pending on the date on which the matter of determination of the amount of compensation will be taken up. Service of such a. notice, being necessary for effectuating the right conferred on the local authority under S. 50(2) of the L.A. Act, can, therefore, be regarded as an integral part of the said right and the failure to give such a notice would result in denial of the said right unless it can be shown that the local authority had knowledge about the pendency of the acquisition proceedings before the Collector or the reference Court and has not suffered any prejudice on account of failure to give such notice. 11. Thus, on an interpretation of the provisions of S.50(2) of the L.A. Act, it must be concluded that, subject to the limitation contained in the proviso, a local authority for whom land is being acquired has a right to participate in the proceedings for acquisition before the Collector as well as the reference Court and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation and the said right imposes an obligation on the Collector as well as the reference Court to give a notice to the local authority with regard to the pendency of those proceedings and the date on which the matter of determination of amount of compensation would be taken up. The recognition of this right raises the question whether the local authority, feeling aggrieved by the determination of the amount of compensation by the Collector or the reference Court, can take recourse to any legal remedy. Before dealing with this question we would take note of the decisions of this Court having a bearing on the issue." Supreme Court sum up the conclusion in para 25 as under :- 25. To sum up, our conclusion are : 1. Section 50(2) of the LA. 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 of 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. 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 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 reopened. (emphasis supplied) 6. Local authority for whom land is being acquired is proper party in acquisition proceeding and reference under Section 18 of the Act. Collector or reference Court before whom acquisition proceeding are pending is required to give adequate notice to the local authority. 7. In the present case, while deciding the reference, Court below has not intimated, informed, noticed or summoned to the present appellant, to enable it to defend itself and to adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation and by not providing such opportunity, the appellate Court has committed an illegality. 8. Consequently, appeal Nos. 283/96, 284/96, 285/96, 286/96, 287/96, 288/96, 289/96 and 291/96 are deserves to be allowed and are hereby allowed. Order impugned is hereby set aside. 9. Case remitted to the reference Court for providing an opportunity of adducing evidence for purpose of determining the amount of compensation under Section 50(2) of the Act. Parties shall remain in attendance before the reference Court i.e. 2nd Additional District Judge, Raipur on 04.09.2013. No order as to costs. Case Remanded.