Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. : 1. This first appeal is directed against the judgment and/or award passed by the Learned First Additional District Judge (L.A. Judge), Burdwan on 11th April, 2001 in L.A. Case No. 115 of 1996 at the instance of the referring claimant. 2. As a matter of fact, the requiring body was not a party in the reference case before the learned L.A. Judge. No notice was sent to the requiring body in connection with the said reference case. The reference case being L.A. Case No. 115 of 1996 was decided in the absence of the requiring body. The requiring body felt aggrieved as compensation amount payable by the requiring body was enhanced substantially by the learned L.A. Judge without hearing the requiring body. 3. Hence, the instant appeal was filed by the requiring body after obtaining leave from this Court, as a party affected by the impugned award. 4. Maintainability of such an appeal at the instance of the requiring body cannot be questioned in view of the five Judges Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad –vs- Gyan Devi (Dead) by L.Rs. & Anr. reported in AIR 1995 SC 724 . It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision that 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 appeal. It was further held therein that this would apply to an appeal in the High Court as well as in the Supreme Court. 5. In subsequent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority – vs- Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. reported in (2011) 2 SCC 54 , it was held therein that if the compensation amount is enhanced by the L.A. Judge without affording opportunity to the local authority to participate in the proceeding before the Court, the order passed by the L.A. Judge will be regarded as nullity. 6. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority –vs- Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. (supra), Mr. 6. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority –vs- Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. (supra), Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the award impugned in this appeal should be set aside by treating the said award as nullity. 7. We are really impressed by such submission of Mr. Banerjee and initially we decided to set aside the impugned award on the ground as mentioned hereinabove. 8. However, after considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we ultimately decided to consider the appeal on merit without sending it back to the concerned L.A. Judge for disposal of the reference case afresh in the presence of all the parties to the land acquisition proceeding including requiring body. 9. Here is the case where we find that 0.84 acres of land comprising in Plot No.1 at Mouza-Alamganj, J.L. No.-31, P.S. & District-Burdwan was acquired by the government for construction of a Bus Depot of South Bengal State Transport Corporation thereon under the provision of Act II of 1948. The said plot of land was owned by two persons viz. Milon Roy and Sunil Chandra Sarkar. Sunil Chandra Sarkar the respondent herein was the owner of 50 decimals of land out of 0.84 acres. Milon Roy was the owner of the remaining area being 0.34 acres. 10. The entire land measuring about 0.84 acres was acquired by the government under Act II of 1948, in one land acquisition proceeding initiated vide notice under Section 4(1a) of Act II of 1948 bearing No. 723/LA (PW) Judge dated 11th March, 1993. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the valuation of the said land at a very low rate by treating the nature of the land acquired as Danga. 11. Both the land owners viz. Milon Roy and Sunil Chandra Sarkar felt aggrieved. On their prayer two references were made to the learned L.A. Judge for assessment of the compensation payable to the land looser. The reference which was made concerning the land of Milon Roy, was registered as L.A. Case No. 117 of 1996. The other L.A. Case No. relating to acquisition of the interest of the other land looser viz. Sunil Chandra Sarkar was registered as L.A. Case No. 115/2 of 1996/98. The L.A. Case of 117of 1996 was decided earlier. The reference which was made concerning the land of Milon Roy, was registered as L.A. Case No. 117 of 1996. The other L.A. Case No. relating to acquisition of the interest of the other land looser viz. Sunil Chandra Sarkar was registered as L.A. Case No. 115/2 of 1996/98. The L.A. Case of 117of 1996 was decided earlier. Three deeds were produced by the referring claimant therein in connection with the said proceeding showing that the valuation of the land at the relevant time was about Rs. 25,000/- per decimal. 12. Though the State Government did not adduce any evidence in the said proceeding, some documents were produced showing that the valuation of the land acquired will not be more than Rs. 2180/- per decimal. Considering the nature of the land which was Bastu and the location of the land acquired, the learned L.A. Judge ultimately assessed the valuation of the land acquired at Rs. 15,000/- per decimal in the said L.A. Case No. 117 of 1996. Such assessment of the compensation payable to the referring claimant was made in the absence of the requiring body. 13. The legality and/or propriety of the said judgment and/or award passed by the L.A. Judge was challenged by the State Government in appeal before this Hon’ble Court. Subsequently, the requiring body was also impleaded as a party respondent in the said appeal. The said appeal was ultimately dismissed for default as the State Government did not take any step in the said appeal. No step was taken by the State Government for restoration thereof. Even the requiring body neither filed any regular appeal challenging the said assessment made by the learned L.A. Judge nor filed any cross-objection in the said appeal for challenging the correctness of assessment of valuation of the land acquired made by the learned L.A. Judge in the said proceeding. 14. As a matter of fact, the requiring body accepted the assessment of compensation amount to be paid to the referring claimant, made by the learned L.A. Judge in the said proceeding and ultimately satisfied the award by paying the compensation to Mr. Milon Roy, the referring claimant in the said proceeding on the basis of the valuation, made by the learned L.A. Judge in the said proceeding. 15. The said proceeding thus, ended after reaching the finality in the manner as aforesaid. 16. Milon Roy, the referring claimant in the said proceeding on the basis of the valuation, made by the learned L.A. Judge in the said proceeding. 15. The said proceeding thus, ended after reaching the finality in the manner as aforesaid. 16. The present L.A. Case being L.A. Case No. 115/2 of 1996/98 which was referred to the learned L.A. Judge at the instance of Sunil Chandra Sarkar, the respondent herein was also decided by the learned L.A. Judge by accepting the valuation of the land acquired at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per decimal by taking into consideration the decision of the learned L.A. Judge passed in the other proceeding being L.A. Case No.117 of 1996 which attained its finality. 17. The legality of the said judgment and/or award is challenged in this appeal at the instance of the requiring body. 18. When the requiring body accepted the valuation assessed by the learned L.A. Judge in L.A. Case No. 117 of 1996 and satisfied the said award by paying compensation to the referring claimant therein as per the award published by the learned L.A. Judge in L.A. Case No. 117 of 1996, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order for the simple reason that the learned L.A. Judge while disposing of the said reference case, assessed the valuation of the land of the referring claimant herein by accepting the valuation as assessed by the learned L.A. Judge in the other L.A. Case No. 117 of 1996 and thus maintained uniformity in assessment of valuation of the land acquired belonging to two co-sharers. 19. We thus, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order though we technically accept the submission of Mr. Banerjee that the order impugned was not legal in strict sense in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority –vs- Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) by LRs. & Ors., as the facts in the case which is in our hand, is not identically similar with the facts which was before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case. 20. We thus, dismissed the appeal and maintain the order of the learned L.A. Judge. 21. We are informed by Mr. & Ors., as the facts in the case which is in our hand, is not identically similar with the facts which was before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case. 20. We thus, dismissed the appeal and maintain the order of the learned L.A. Judge. 21. We are informed by Mr. Banerjee that the enhanced compensation as per the award of the learned L.A. Judge, has already been deposited by the requiring body with the learned Registrar General of this Hon’ble Court on 4th January, 2012 and the said money was invested in a fixed deposit with a Nationalised Bank. 22. We thus, direct the learned Registrar General of this Hon’ble Court to pay the entire deposited amount together with interest accrued thereon to the respondent no.1 subject to compliance of the necessary formalities by him in this regard. 23. Both the appeal and the application are thus, disposed of. 24. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the Learned advocates for the parties immediately.