JUDGMENT 1. By order dated 06/03/2013, notices were issued to the respondents by putting the parties to notice that the petition may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 2. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard forthwith. 4. By this petition, the petitioner has taken exception to the award dated 27/02/2012 passed by respondent no.1 in Case No. XVI(6)DC(LA)/2008 and has prayed for a consequent direction to respondents no. 3 to 6 to return the money received by them under the impugned award with interest at the rate of 15 % p.a. 5. An area of 3000 square metres comprised in a quarry, falling in R-Zone, at Dona Paula and located opposite the British Cemetery, from Chalta No. 1(P) of P.T. Sheet No. 188 of City Survey, Panaji, recorded in the name of respondent no. 6, was notified by Government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short) for sanitary land fill site at Panaji for the petitioner. Notification under section 6 and 7 of the Act was published and subsequently, the notices under sections 9 and 10 of the Act were also issued. Individual notices were also served on the interested persons. Only two claims were received for compensation: one from the respondent no. 6 and the other from respondents no. 3, 4 and 5. The said respondents then submitted a joint application before the respondent no. 1 and prayed for apportionment of compensation in the proportion of 60% to the respondent no. 6 and the balance 40% to the respondents no. 3 to 5. An award was made and communicated to the petitioner. However, the respondent no. 7-Association, had filed a writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 569/2010, challenging the said acquisition and the award, wherein they had offered to hand over the said area to the petitioner so that it can be used as a land fill site for non-biodegradable waste and be developed into a playground/park and then returned to them. The offer of respondent no. 7 was accepted by the petitioner and consequently, possession of the said area was handed over to the petitioner by the said Association, de hors the land acquisition process. As a consequence, the said Writ Petition No. 569/2010 was withdrawn by respondent no. The offer of respondent no. 7 was accepted by the petitioner and consequently, possession of the said area was handed over to the petitioner by the said Association, de hors the land acquisition process. As a consequence, the said Writ Petition No. 569/2010 was withdrawn by respondent no. 7 in the presence of the learned Counsel of respondents no. 3 to 6. A review filed by respondents no. 3 to 6 against the said order was rejected. As the possession was received by the petitioner from respondent no. 7, de hors the acquisition, respondent no. 7 requested the Government to withdraw from acquisition as a consequence of the letters of the petitioner dated 06/09/2010 and 09/03/2011. The Government exercised its powers under Section 48(1) of the Act and withdrew from acquisition vide notification dated 23/07/2012 bearing no. 22/23/2007-RD/3061 published in the newspaper namely Navhind Times dated 25/07/2012. The respondent no. 6 and the respondents no. 3 to 5 filed their claim for damages. The respondent no.1 took up the plea of respondents no. 3 to 6 for compensation under Section 48(2) of the Act. Respondent no.1 proceeded to pass the award dated 27/12/2012 which award was communicated to the petitioner on 08/01/2013 along with a letter dated 28/12/2012. The respondent no. 8, with whom the money was deposited by the petitioner, for acquisition, disbursed the awarded amount to respondents no. 3 to 6. The petitioner had not participated in the said proceedings under Section 48(2) of the Act. 6. According to the petitioner, no notice whatsoever was given to the petitioner of any claim made by the respondents no. 3 to 6 nor was the petitioner given any opportunity of hearing by respondent no.1 at any time on the said plea of respondents no. 3 to 6, though the acquisition was for the benefit of the petitioner and the petitioner had deposited the sum of Rs. 3 Lakhs towards the acquisition with respondent no. 8 and it was the petitioner, who had sought withdrawal of acquisition. The petitioner has alleged that even prior to the receipt of the letter by the petitioner, the respondent no. 8, with whom the money was deposited by the petitioner disbursed the awarded amount to respondents no. 3 to 6, thereby practically gobbling the entire amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs deposited (i.e. leaving a balance of Rs. 411/-). The petitioner has alleged that even prior to the receipt of the letter by the petitioner, the respondent no. 8, with whom the money was deposited by the petitioner disbursed the awarded amount to respondents no. 3 to 6, thereby practically gobbling the entire amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs deposited (i.e. leaving a balance of Rs. 411/-). The petitioner has stated that all the above was done collusively behind the back of the petitioner and without any notice whatsoever to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner claims that the award dated 27/12/2012 and the consequent disbursement of the petitioners' money to the respondents no. 3 to 6 is without or in excess of jurisdiction, illegal and void. 7. Respondents no. 3, 4 and 5 in their affidavit alleged as follows: That the property in question is known as “Marvel” and also known as “Marivel” and respondents no. 3, 4 and 5 are the co-owners of the said property; that vide Agreement of Sale dated 06/04/1966 with M/s Real Estate Agencies i.e. respondent no. 6, the said larger property was developed into several individual plots in the name and style of “La Marvel Colony”; that a small portion admeasuring 3000 square metres of the said property remained vacant and undeveloped on account of unfilled quarry pit located therein; that in terms of the order dated 27/06/2007 of a Division Bench of this Court made in M.C.A. No. 461 of 2007 in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 2/2007, the petitioner was directed to identify a landfill site; that the said unfilled quarry pit admeasuring 3000 square metres was identified by the petitioner as landfill site; that accordingly, the land acquisition proceedings took place and respondent no.1 declared the award with prior approval of the State Government; that in the interregnum, the Writ Petition No. 569/2010 came to be filed at the instance of respondent no. 7 before this Court, which petition came to be withdrawn on 06/09/2010 without any adjudication thereon; that since the payment of compensation was not effected to the said respondents, they were constrained to approach the High Court by means of Writ Petition which was registered as Writ Petition No. 93/2011; that by order dated 24/03/2011, the Division Bench of this Court rejected the said Writ Petition, but no opinion was expressed on title; that vide notification No. 22/23/2007-RD/3061 dated 23/07/2012 issued in terms of Section 48(1) of the Act, the State Government declared withdrawal from acquisition of the said property and informed the parties inviting them to lodge their respective claims under Section 48(2) before the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) in respect of the damages suffered by them as a consequence of the notice of any proceedings therein and for costs reasonably incurred by them in prosecution of the proceedings under the Act and with relation to the said property; that respondents no. 3, 4 and 5 filed their claims seeking compensation; that by the award dated 27/12/2012, respondent no.1 adjudicated the claims and awarded Rs. 29,500/- as compensation towards the legal fees as well as other expenses including miscellaneous expenses and an amount of Rs. 9060/- as compensation in terms of Section 23(1A) with effect from 05/03/2008 and Rs. 8,850/- as compensation in terms of Section 23(2) of the Act; that dissatisfied with the said award, the said respondents preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Act; that the said respondents are title holders of the property; that only individual plots were sold to the constituents of respondent no. 7 and not to respondent no.7-Association; that the present petition has been filed at the instance of respondent o. 7, which otherwise cannot in any manner intervene in this land acquisition proceedings; that respondent no. 7 has no legal existence and could not have been impleaded as a party to the present proceedings; that no special notice needs to be given either to the petitioner or respondent no. 7 and that no special notice was given to the said respondents also; that the petitioner and respondent no. 7 had not approached respondent no.1 seeking to be impleaded as party or for intervening in the said proceedings; that it is only after the award dated 27/12/2012 that respondent no. 7 and that no special notice was given to the said respondents also; that the petitioner and respondent no. 7 had not approached respondent no.1 seeking to be impleaded as party or for intervening in the said proceedings; that it is only after the award dated 27/12/2012 that respondent no. 7 has knee-jerked the petitioner in order to file the present petition. 8. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Respondent no. 6, it was, inter alia, contended as follows: That the petition is replete with misleading statements and incorrect facts; that a perusal of the Writ Petition No. 569/2010 would reveal that there is no whisper of regulation 5.4(2) of the Planning and Development Authority Regulation, 2000(PDA Regulations); that as a belated and malafide afterthought, the Association i.e. respondent no. 7 had sought to withdraw the said Writ Petition No. 569/2010 in collusion with the petitioner only with a view to unlawfully deprive respondent no. 6 i.e. the original developer of its proprietary right in respect of the suit plot, by mere exchange of collusive letters behind the back of respondent no. 6; that the petitioner had subdivided the plots of the larger property to develop the same as La Marvel Colony under the Goa, Daman and Diu Interim Building Bye-laws and Zoning Regulations, 1965, wherein there was no provision/requirement for setting aside open spaces, let alone any provision akin to 5.4(2) PDA Regulations; that the subdivision made under the old regulations is not governed by PDA Regulations; that the petitioner is seeking an opportunity to be heard in respect of the proceedings for withdrawal of acquisition under Section 48 of the Act by equating itself to the proceedings under Section 11 of the Act; that the petitioner has an alternate remedy under Section 18 read with Section 48(3) of the Act and such a remedy available to the petitioner is not barred by the provisions of Section 50 of the Act; that respondent no. 6 otherwise has filed an application before the learned Collector for reference under Section 18 of the Act by accepting the offer made in the award under Section 48 of the said Act under protest; that the present award under Section 48 of the Act was preceded by acquisition of the said plot at the instance of the petitioner which culminated into an award dated 22/06/2010 under Section 11(1) of the Act, after obtaining Government approval; that it was only after due enquiry and by following all the required procedures that the Collector had declared the said award under Section 11(1) of the Act; that the petitioner had, at no stage, objected to the said proceedings; that neither the petitioner nor the said Association made any grievance about the title of respondent no. 6 in terms of regulation 5.4(2) of the PDA Regulations and neither the petitioner nor the said Association made any attempt to be heard or to participate in the proceedings under Section 11 of the Act before the learned Collector. In the present proceedings under Section 48 of the Act, respondent no. 2 had issued notification bearing No. 22/23/2007-RD/3061 dated 23/07/2012 for withdrawal of the proceedings and the same was duly published in the local newspapers; that under due compliance of Section 48 of the Act, the Collector proceeded to pass an award, pursuant to objections received in terms of the said Government notification; that the petitioner was at all stages kept informed about the proceedings under Section 48 of the Act; that even otherwise, the petitioner is neither the necessary nor proper party to the proceedings under Section 48 of the Act and in fact the petitioner, and respondents no.1 and 2 and 8 are all instrumentalities of the Government of Goa insofar as the acquisition in question is concerned and the petitioner has approached this Court to cure its administrative follies for no fault of the respondents no. 3 to 6; that the persons interested are entitled to the costs reasonably incurred in the prosecution of the proceedings under the Act; that under Section 48(3) of the Act, the provisions of Part III of the Act are squarely made applicable to the determination of compensation payable therein; that the question which required to be decided was not whether respondent no. 6 had any title to the suit plot, but whether respondent no. 6 had any title to the suit plot, but whether respondent no. 6 was divested of the title to the suit plot by virtue of Regulation 5.4(2) of the PDA Regulations; that respondent no. 6 was never divested of its title to the suit plot. 9. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent no. 8, it was alleged that respondent no.8 has been unnecessarily impleaded and that false and baseless allegations have been made against it. Respondent no. 8 is not concerned with the disputes, if any, between the petitioner and respondents no. 3 to 7. In terms of the circular dated 02/01/2004, respondent no. 8 is earmarked by the Government as “Institution” for the purposes of depositing land acquisition compensations by all the departments of the Government. By order dated 11/02/2010, the Government issued instructions for the purpose of streamlining the process regarding the deposit of land acquisition compensations with respondent no. 8. Accordingly, in terms of the said circular dated 02/01/2004 and the order dated 11/02/2010, the amounts towards land acquisition compensations are deposited by respective departments upon Government approval with respondent no. 8. On completion of land acquisition process, land acquisition cell makes a request to respondent no. 8 to draw cheques in the name of beneficiaries, who may have been awarded compensation. The cheques are, thereafter, drawn and forwarded to the land acquisition cell and the land acquisition cell, upon completion of the prescribed procedures, releases the cheques to the beneficiaries. Hence, respondent no. 8 is not involved with any inter se disputes between the parties in the matter of either acquisition or payment of compensation. 10. Mr. Dessai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner had deposited money for the purpose of acquisition, it had not been made party to the proceedings under Section 48(2) of the Act and the award has been made without notice being sent to the petitioner and without participation of the petitioner. He pointed out that all the claims were rejected except the legal fees and other expenses including miscellaneous expenses and the costs. He submitted that this was because the locus was not proved by the respondents and title was not established. Mr. Dessai submitted that there had to be a claim made by the interested party. He pointed out that all the claims were rejected except the legal fees and other expenses including miscellaneous expenses and the costs. He submitted that this was because the locus was not proved by the respondents and title was not established. Mr. Dessai submitted that there had to be a claim made by the interested party. He pointed out that under Section 50(2), the local authority or Company concerned may appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. He submitted that such local authority or Company is not entitled to demand a reference under Section 18 of the Act. He submitted that the impugned award has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, since the petitioner has not been given an opportunity of being heard and in fact no notice whatsoever was issued to it on the claim of respondents no. 3 to 6. He pointed out that the petitioner did not get any opportunity to contest the claim, though the acquisition was for its benefit and it is the petitioner, which had sought withdrawal from the acquisition. He read out the provisions of Section 45 of the Act which requires notices to be served. He submitted that no notice as prescribed by Section 45 was issued to the petitioner. He submitted that mere publication of the notification dated 23/07/2012 for withdrawal of the proceedings would not serve the purpose, since every notice of withdrawal may not result in the claims. He submitted that the petitioner ought to have been notified of the claims, since the money was deposited with the respondent no. 8, by the petitioner. Learned Counsel pointed out from the impugned award that the respondent no. 6 had not gone into the title to the property and has observed that it was for the respondent no. 6 to pursue the issue of title before the appropriate forum. According to Mr. Dessai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, one who is not entitled to ownership, is not entitled for costs and if that party cannot claim compensation, the question of he claiming the costs does not arise. He submitted that Solatium is not payable on costs but the respondent no. 1 has awarded Solatium also on the costs. Mr. He submitted that Solatium is not payable on costs but the respondent no. 1 has awarded Solatium also on the costs. Mr. Dessai, therefore, contended that there were several legal as well as factual points which were not considered by the respondent no. 1 and the petitioner had right to be heard and, therefore, it would be proper for this Court to set aside the award and remand the matter back to the Collector (L.A.) for fresh decision. He further urged that this is a fit case to direct the respondents no. 3 to 6 to refund the entire amount received by them under the award along with interest. He relied upon the following judgments: (i) State of Punjab Vs. Amarjit Singh and another, [ AIR 2011 SC 982 ] (ii) Kanak (SMT) and another Vs. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad and others, [(2003) 7 CC 693] (iii) U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi (Dead) by L.Rs and another, [ AIR 1995 SC 724 ] (iv) M/s. Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd. Vs. Special Tahasildar (Land Acquisition), Neyvely and others, [ AIR 1995 SC 1004 ]. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Pai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 6 submitted that by virtue of agreement for Development and Sale dated 06/04/1966, executed by the owner of the property, in favour of respondent no. 6, the respondent no. 6 had developed the said property into several individual plots, as 'La Marvel Colony' and that this was a Private sub-division scheme, with the respondent no. 6 having an irrevocable interest therein. He submitted that the name of the respondent no. 6 was thus mutated and entered into the revenue record of the entire land. He further submitted that the plots were sold to several persons and the respondent no. 6 however, on its own volition kept the plot admeasuring 3000 square metres, open. According to him, the said persons who purchased plots constructed individual structures in their plots but the said plot admeasuring 3000 square metres under Chalta No. 1(P) of P. T. Sheet No. 188 always remained to be the property of the respondent no. 6. He submitted that the respondent no. 6 is sought to be divested of title to the suit plot by virtue of regulation 5.4(2) of PDA Regulations. 6. He submitted that the respondent no. 6 is sought to be divested of title to the suit plot by virtue of regulation 5.4(2) of PDA Regulations. He submitted that subdivisions were made in the year 1965, when the Goa, Daman and Diu Interim Building Bye-laws and Zoning Regulations, 1965 were in force, under which there was no provision for setting aside open spaces. He pointed out that in the Writ petition No. 92/2011, that was filed by respondent no. 6, a point regarding regulation 5.4(2) was duly raised. He submitted that respondent no. 6 had obtained a copy of the justification report given by Advocate namely Shri Agnelo F. Diniz, who was then representing the petitioner. He read out the provision of Section 48(2) of the Act and submitted that when the Government withdraws from the acquisition, it is the Government, which has to pay compensation. He pointed out that the said compensation is required to be paid together with all costs reasonably incurred by the person interested in the prosecution of the proceedings. According to the learned counsel, the title of respondent no. 6 was not disputed in the land acquisition proceedings and that the respondent no. 6 has even made an application under section 18 of the Act. Learned Counsel alleged that in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 6 of the Act, where the compensation to be awarded is to be paid out of the funds of a corporation owned or controlled by the State, such compensation is deemed to be compensation paid out of public revenues. He submitted that in terms of Section 50 of the Act, where the land is acquired at the cost of any fund controlled or managed by a local authority or by any Company, the charges incidental to such acquisition have to be defrayed by such fund or Company. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is an agent of the State. He invited my attention to letter dated 06/09/2010 addressed by the Commissioner of the petitioner to the Deputy Collector, (LA), by which the petitioner decided to take possession of the site without any financial burden on exchequer, since respondent no. 5 considered to provide open space/quarry to be used by the petitioner as landfill site, without any claim for compensation. He invited my attention to letter dated 06/09/2010 addressed by the Commissioner of the petitioner to the Deputy Collector, (LA), by which the petitioner decided to take possession of the site without any financial burden on exchequer, since respondent no. 5 considered to provide open space/quarry to be used by the petitioner as landfill site, without any claim for compensation. He, then, pointed out to the letter dated 09/03/2011 addressed by the Commissioner of the petitioner to the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) informing that the Government may, in the exercise of power under Section 48 of the Act, withdraw from acquisition and publish requisite notification under Section 48 of the Act. He also invited my attention to Section 379 of the City of Panaji Corporation Act, 2002 which gives power to the Government to supersede the Corporation in case of incompetency or default or excess or abuse of powers. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 6, therefore contended that the ultimate control over the petitioner is of the Government and therefore there was no need to notify the petitioner individually about the proceedings under section 48(2) of the Act. Mr. Pai relied upon a case of “Percival Joseph Pereira Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others”, [ 2010(1) Mh.L.J. 985 ]. He, therefore, submitted that there is no substance in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 12. Mr. Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 3, 4 and 5, adopted the arguments of the leaned Counsel for the respondent no. 3 and further added that the said respondents in their affidavit-in-reply have stated on oath all the facts and that the said facts have not been denied by way of affidavit-in-rejoinder. He submitted that constructive notice should be deemed to have been given to the petitioner and, therefore, the question of setting aside the award, does not arise. 13. Mr. Noorani, the learned Additional Government Advocate, submitted that the respondent no. 1 acted in terms of section 48 of the Act. 14. Ms. Andrea Fernandes, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 7 adopted the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the respondent no. 7 was also kept away from the proceedings under Section 48(2) of the Act. She further submitted that in Writ Petition No. 92/2011, filed by the respondent no. 14. Ms. Andrea Fernandes, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 7 adopted the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the respondent no. 7 was also kept away from the proceedings under Section 48(2) of the Act. She further submitted that in Writ Petition No. 92/2011, filed by the respondent no. 6, a Division Bench of this Court, in paragraph 13 thereof, has observed that the remedy of the respondent no. 6 is not to file the writ petition but to move elsewhere and assert the title in the land and claim proper reliefs including damages from all and more particularly from the Association, i.e. the respondent no. 7. Learned Counsel therefore contended that the respondent no. 6 should approach the Civil Court for the claim of compensation. 15. Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 8 submitted that respondent no. 8 has acted in terms of the provisions of law and in terms of the circular dated 02/01/2004 and order dated 11/02/2010, issued by the Government of Goa and that they have nothing to do with any amount nor have any interest in the present petition and have no dispute at all with anyone. Therefore, he submitted that respondent no.8 has been wrongly impleaded in the present petition. 16. I have gone through the entire material on record. I have given careful consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and I have also considered the judgments cited by them. 17. Before dealing with the submissions, it will be advantageous to consider the relevant provisions of law. 18. (a) Section 48 of the Act provides as under: “48. Completion of acquisition not compulsory, but compensation to be awarded when not completed.- (1) Except in the case provided for in section 36, the Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken. (2) Whenever the Government withdraws from any such acquisition, the Collector shall determine the amount of compensation due for the damage suffered by the owner in consequence of the notice or of any proceedings there under, and shall pay such amount to the person interested, together with all costs reasonably incurred by him in the prosecution of the proceedings under this Act relating to the said land. (3) The provision of Part III of this Act shall apply, so far as may be, to the determination of the compensation payable under this section.” (b) Section 50 of the Act lays down as under: “50. Acquisition of land at cost of a local authority of Company.- (1) Where the provisions of this Act are put in force for the purpose of acquiring land at the cost of any fund controlled or managed by a local authority or of any Company, the charges of and incidental to such acquisition shall be defrayed from or by such fund or company. (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.” (c) Section 20 of the Act provides as under: “20. Service of notice.- The Court shall thereupon cause a notice, specifying the day on which the Court will proceed to determine the objection, and directing their appearance before the Court on that day, to be served on the following persons, namely:- (a) the applicant; (b) all persons interested in the objection, except such (if any) of them as have consented without protest to receive payment of the compensation awarded; and (c) If the objection is in regard to the area of the land or to the amount of the compensation, the Collector.” (d) Section 45 of the Act lays down as under: 45 Service of notices.- (1) Service of any notice under this Act shall be made by delivering or tendering a copy thereof signed, in the case of a notice under Section 4, by the officer therein mentioned, and in the case of any other notice, by or by order of the Collector or the judge. (2) Whenever it may be practicable, the service of the notice shall be made on the person therein named. (2) Whenever it may be practicable, the service of the notice shall be made on the person therein named. (3) When such person cannot be found, the service may be made on any adult male member of his family residing with him; and, if no such adult member can be found, the notice may be served by fixing the copy on the outer door of the house in which the person therein named ordinarily dwells or carries on business, or by fixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the office of the officer aforesaid or of the Collector or in the court-house, and also in some conspicuous part of the land to be acquired: Provided that, if the Collector or judge shall so direct, a notice may be sent by post, in a letter addressed to the person named therein at last known residence, address or place of business and registered under section 28 and 29 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, and service of it may be proved by the production of the addressee's receipt. 19. Though the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 3 to 6 vehemently argued the matter more on merits, as to how the said respondent were entitled to the compensation awarded in their favour, however, upon consideration of the submissions, in my considered view the moot question that arises in the present petition, is whether notice of the proceedings under Section 48(2) of the Act was required to be given to the petitioner before determination of the questions involved in the said proceedings and before passing the award dated 27/12/2012. 20. Admittedly, no notice of the proceedings under Section 48(2) of the Act, was issued or served on the local authority i.e. the petitioner. From the provision of sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the Act, it is clear that the provisions of Part III of the Act are applicable to the determination of the compensation payable under the Act. Part III deals with reference to Court and procedure thereon. Further sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act provides that in any proceedings 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. Part III deals with reference to Court and procedure thereon. Further sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act provides that in any proceedings 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. Obviously, the right to adduce evidence for the purpose of determining compensation, carries with it the right to be given adequate notice by the Collector before whom the proceedings for determination of compensation will be taken. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent no. 6 that the publication of Notification No. 22/23/2007-RD/3061 dated 23/07/2012 under section 48(1) of the Act is sufficient notice to all the parties concerned, in my view bears no substance. That notification only informs the public in general that the Government has withdrawn from acquisition so as to enable the interested parties to lodge their claims for compensation. Only if such claims are lodged, the question of determination of the amount of compensation to the said claimants would arise. The local authority or the Company for whose benefit and on whose behalf the withdrawal from acquisition has taken place and who is responsible for payment of compensation is bound to be notified, in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act. Admittedly, the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards land acquisition compensations was deposited by the petitioner with the respondent no. 8. The petitioner has specifically averred in the petition that the acquisition was for the benefit of the petitioner and that the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- with the respondent no. 8 and it was the petitioner itself which has sought the withdrawal of acquisition. The respondent no 1, after passing the award, has intimated the petitioner, by letter dated 28/12/2012 that an amount of Rs. 2,99,589/- has been awarded and apportioned to the claimants and that an amount of Rs. 411/- is refundable to the petitioner and the same will be paid to it in due course. Thus, the balance was refundable to the petitioner and not to the Government. The State of Goa is party respondent no. 2 to this petition. No affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the respondent no. 2 has been filed thereby refuting the claim of the petitioner. 21. Thus, the balance was refundable to the petitioner and not to the Government. The State of Goa is party respondent no. 2 to this petition. No affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the respondent no. 2 has been filed thereby refuting the claim of the petitioner. 21. In the case of “Kanak (SMT) and another” (supra), the respondent was a statutory body created under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965. The land was acquired for the benefit of the respondent and the respondent was responsible for payment of compensation. Insofar as service of notice on the respondent was concerned, the Apex Court held that: “Service of notice: 32. It is not in doubt or dispute that no formal notice was served upon the respondent. A notice to a person, for whose benefit the land is acquired or who is responsible for payment of compensation amount, was mooted before the courts of law on the construction of Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act. It was held that Sub-Section (2) of Section 50 must be construed as conferring a right of notice to the local authority at the stage of determination of the amount of compensation before the Collector as well as the reference court. It is not in dispute that the respondent was not represented even before the Collector. In the aforementioned situation, this Court in Gyan Devi held: (SCC p. 337, para 9) "In other words the right conferred under Section 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 of 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 Section 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." 33. It is not correct to contend that by reason of non-service of notice the respondent was not prejudiced. The exception carried out by this Court in the matter of service of notice to the local authority is not only confined to its knowledge about the pendency of the acquisition proceedings before the Collector or the reference court but also any prejudice on account thereof. The said two conditions are to be read conjunctively and not disjunctively.” 22. In the case of “U. P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi” (supra), the Apex Court has held that Section 50(2) of the 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 and the said right 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, of the date on which the matter of determination of compensation will be taken up. Paragraph 21 of the judgment in the case supra, inter alia, reads thus: “Since the amount of the compensation is to be paid by the local authority and it has an interest in the determination of the said amount, which has been given recognition in Section 50(2) of the L. A. Act, the local authority would be a person aggrieved who can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to assail the award in spite of the proviso precluding the local authority from seeking a reference. Such a challenge will, however, be limited to the grounds on which judicial review is permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution. In a case where the local authority has failed to appear in spite of service of notice the local authority can have no cause for grievance. Even in such a case it may be permissible for the local authority to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to assail the award if it is vitiated by mala fides or is perverse.” 23. In the case of “M/s. Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd.” (supra), the Apex Court has explained as to who is the interested party. In the case of “M/s. Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd.” (supra), the Apex Court has explained as to who is the interested party. It has been held thus: “The beneficiary, i.e., local authority or company, a co-op. 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. 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 theappeal against the enhanced award and decree of the Civil Court under s.26 or of the judgment and decree under s.54 or is entitled to file writ petition under Art. 226 and assail its legality or correctness. When the award made under s. 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 Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. 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 Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C.. The denial of the right to a person interested is in negation of fair and just procedure offending Art. 14 of the Constitution.” 24. In the present case, admittedly, the said land was sought to be acquired for sanitary landfill site at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner would have been the beneficiary of the said land acquisition. The petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs with respondent no.8. There is no evidence at all to show that this money was received by the petitioner from the State Government. Admittedly no notice was given to the petitioner. The petitioner would have been the beneficiary of the said land acquisition. The petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs with respondent no.8. There is no evidence at all to show that this money was received by the petitioner from the State Government. Admittedly no notice was given to the petitioner. Merely by contending that the petitioner was the instrumentality of the Government and that it was controlled by the Government, it cannot be taken for granted that notice was given to it. It can be said that prejudice has been caused to the petitioner on account of the making of the award, without participation of the petitioner. Admittedly, by award dated 27/12/2012, the amount that has been awarded in favour of respondents no.3 to 6 has been paid from out of the said amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs deposited by the petitioner. It is seen that solatium has been granted by the respondent no. 1 on the compensation towards costs. From the impugned judgment, it is clear beyond doubt that the petitioner being the beneficiary of the acquisition and was responsible for payment of compensation, had right to be given notice by the Collector at the stage of determination of compensation and since the same has not been given to the petitioner, prejudice has been caused to it and hence the impugned award cannot sustain as the same is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 25. In the case of “Percival Joseph Pereira” (supra), relied upon by the learned Counsel for respondent no. 6, the City Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited ('CIDCO'), a local authority was directed to be added as opponent to the land acquisition reference under Section 18 of the Act, by the Reference Court. However, the learned Single Judge of this Court held that 'CIDCO' cannot claim right of audience on the ground that it is a person interested. Upon perusal of the entire judgment in the case supra, I am of the view that the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case are not at all applicable to the present case. In paragraph 11 of the judgment in the case (supra), learned Single Judge of this Court has observed thus: “11. Upon perusal of the entire judgment in the case supra, I am of the view that the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case are not at all applicable to the present case. In paragraph 11 of the judgment in the case (supra), learned Single Judge of this Court has observed thus: “11. From consideration of the aforesaid documents the following factual position emerges: a) For setting up of the new town of New Bombay, in exercise of powers under sub-section 3(A) of section 113 of the said Act of 1966 under notification dated 20 March 1971, the CIDCO was appointed as the New Town Development Authority. Thus, the State Government decided to get the work of development of the site of the city of New Bombay done through CIDCO as an agent of the State Government. b) The acquiring body for the acquisition of land for New Bombay project was the Town Development Department of the State Government and with effect from 20 March, 2006 certain Officers of the CIDCO have been empowered to submit the proposals for the acquisition of land on behalf of the State Government. c) Till 1st April, 2008 not only that the CIDCO was not the acquiring body, but, even the compensation on account of acquisition of lands for the said project was paid by the State Government and not by the CIDCO. d) The effect of the decision dated 12 February, 2008 is that from 1 April, 2008 the CIDCO will have to pay the compensation amount "on account of Government". However, the Town Development department of the State Government continues to be the acquiring body. e) As far as the present acquisition is concerned, the notification under section 6 of the said Act 1894 makes it clear that the land was acquired under Section 113-A at the instance of the State Government and at the expenses of State Government.” 26. In the case of “Percival Joseph Pereira” (supra), it was found that the notification under Section 6 of the Act made it very clear that the acquisition was at the cost of State Government and the same was made and completed prior to 01/04/2008 and, therefore, going by the Government Resolution dated 12/02/2008, the compensation and enhanced compensation was payable by the State Government. Insofar as 'CIDCO' was concerned, the State Government had decided to get the work of development of the site of the city of New Bombay done through CIDCO as an agent of the State Government. The acquiring body was the Town Development Authority. The compensation on account of acquisition of lands for the said project was paid by the State Government and not by CIDCO. Section 50(2) of the Act had no application in the case supra. In the circumstances above, the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case supra held that CIDCO cannot claim right of audience on the ground that it is a person interested. In the present case, the petitioner besides being the “person interested”, was also the local authority, for whose benefit the land was sought to be acquired and ultimately at whose instance the Government withdrew from the acquisition and which had to pay compensation, if the land was acquired and also had to pay compensation under Section 48(2) of the Act. That being the case, the petitioner was bound to be given a notice of hearing before respondent no.1. The impugned award is therefore liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh determination, after notice being given to the petitioner. 27. The allegation made against the respondent no. 8 are, however, without any basis. The respondent no 8 has acted in terms of law. 28. Insofar as the prayer for return of the money received by the respondents no. 3 to 6, under the impugned award, is concerned, I am of the view that such relief should not be given by this Court as the money has been already paid and this court has not gone into the merits of the case. It is for the respondent no. 1 to make appropriate order regarding the said amount. 29. In view of the above, the present petition partly deserves to be allowed. 30. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. (a) The impugned award dated 27/12/2012 passed in Case No. XVI(6)DC(LA)2008 is quashed and set aside. (b) Respondent no.1 shall decide the matter afresh, by hearing all the interested parties, including the petitioner and pass the award, in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made by this Court above. (c) Respondent no. (a) The impugned award dated 27/12/2012 passed in Case No. XVI(6)DC(LA)2008 is quashed and set aside. (b) Respondent no.1 shall decide the matter afresh, by hearing all the interested parties, including the petitioner and pass the award, in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made by this Court above. (c) Respondent no. 1 shall dispose of the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties before it. (d) Parties shall appear before respondent no. 1 on 9th April, 2014, at 3.30 p.m. 31. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.