ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. C.P. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. T. Marngar, learned counsel for the appellant. And also heard Mr. K. Bhattacharyya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. D.C.K. Hazarika and Ms. J. Bezbaruah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 30. 2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.03.2024, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Biswanath Chariali, (‘Reference Court’ for short) in Misc. (Land Acquisition) Case No.1/2019. It is to be mentioned here that vide impugned judgment and order, the learned Reference Court had directed the authority to pay compensation to the respondent Nos.4 to 30. 3. The background facts leading to filing of the present appeal is briefly stated as under:- “The appellant herein is a Public Sector Undertaking engaged in the business of establishing transmission systems and inter-state transmission of electricity, under the Electricity Act, 2003. For construction of 800 KV HVDC Sub-Station at village Nij Baghmari, Mouza-Baghmara, under Biswanath Revenue Circle, the appellant herein, vide its letter No.NEBLP/DHO/HVDC/LAND/342(A), dated 31.07.2006, had applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur, Tezpur, for allotment of certain portion of land inclusive of Government land, measuring 254 bigha, under Dag No.74, located at village Nij Baghmara, Mouza-Baghmara under Biswanath Revenue Circle, District-Sonitpur. Thereafter, land acquisition proceedings were initiated by the State respondents and among other categories of land, there were lands of 27 small tea growers who had been allotted the land for tea plantation under the welfare scheme of Govt. of Assam and an adequate compensation of Rs.60,000/- each only, in the form of shifting grant was paid to them and the determination of the compensation was made keeping in view the provisions of Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1886. In fact the affected small tea growers, 27 in number, were not the actual and legal owner of the land in question and as such, they are not entitled for the compensation as paid to full-fledged landowners and thereafter, the respondent Nos.4—30 had preferred one writ petition before this Court, being WP(C) No.5529/2009 for payment of the land compensation, which was later withdrawn with a liberty to file afresh. Thereafter, the respondent Nos.4—30 had filed a fresh writ petition, being WP(C) No.856/2019, wherein this Court vide order dated 08.02.2019, had granted liberty to the petitioner to file a written application to the Collector, Biswanath Chariali under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 and further directed that if such application being filed, the same shall be considered on merit and the Collector may make a reference to the Principal Civil Court, having jurisdiction. The appellant herein, though impleaded as respondent No.5 in the WP(C) No.856/2019, yet, no notice was issued to the appellant in the said writ petition and further, the respondent Nos.4—30 after getting the liberty from the High Court preferred an application before the Collector, Biswanath Chariali, being a petition for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 on being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount of compensation so received. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Biswanath, admitted the petition as presented by the respondent Nos.4—30 and then referred the matter to the learned District & Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur and vide his letter No.BLA-2/2018-19/100 dated 28.03.2019 forwarded the petition as presented by the respondent Nos.4—30 along with relevant papers. And at the stage, while the Deputy Commissioner, Biswanath, had considered the said petition, the appellant was not given an opportunity of being heard and the Deputy Commissioner, Biswanath, acted like a post office and only forwarded the application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 without any application of mind. Upon the said petition, the learned District Judge registered a Misc. L.A. Case No.1/2019, vide order dated 03.04.2019. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Biswanath Chariali and in the said case, no opposite parties were impleaded and no notice was issued to the appellant and only the Deputy Commissioner, Biswanath, and PW-1 and PW-2 were named as opposite parties. Thereafter, the Additional Deputy Collector (Revenue), Biswanath, has filed a Petition, No.265/2023, for impleading the appellant herein as a necessary party to the proceeding and in the said petition for impleadment, objection was filed by the respondent Nos.4—30. But, the said petition was never disposed of despite the said petition finds mention in the order sheet as well as in the impugned judgment dated 04.03.2024. But, the said petition was never disposed of despite the said petition finds mention in the order sheet as well as in the impugned judgment dated 04.03.2024. The evidence of the respondents were admitted and documents were exhibited without impleading the appellant as a party, who is a necessary and interested party in the case and no opportunity was given to present their case and to cross-examine the claimant’s witnesses. Thereafter, vide impugned judgment and order dated 04.03.2024, the learned Reference Court has held that the respondent Nos.4—30 are entitled to get a fair compensation for their schedule land as per the market value determined by the Circle Officer, Biswanath Revenue Circle with interest @30% on the total value and additional 12% interest over the total value as additional compensation on the basis of determination of amount of compensation as per Section 27 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is the contention of the appellant herein that the impugned judgment and order is against the settled principle of natural justice, fair play and against the tenants of law and as such, the same is arbitrary and liable to be set aside.” 4. Mr. C.P. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant i.e. Power Grid Corporation Ltd. is a Government of India Enterprise and requiring body, and a person interested within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act , but without impleading the appellant and also without disposing of the application No. 265/2023, filed by the Additional District Collector, Biswanath on 16.02.2023, for impleading the appellant herein, and also without affording an opportunity of being heard, the learned Reference Court had passed the impugned judgment and order and on such count the impugned judgment and order stands vitiated on account of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the appellant in spite of being a person interested. And therefore, Mr. Sharma has contended to set-aside the impugned judgment and order and to remand the matter to the learned Reference Court, with a direction to implead the appellant herein and thereafter, to hear the matter afresh and to pass fresh judgment. In support of his submission, Mr. And therefore, Mr. Sharma has contended to set-aside the impugned judgment and order and to remand the matter to the learned Reference Court, with a direction to implead the appellant herein and thereafter, to hear the matter afresh and to pass fresh judgment. In support of his submission, Mr. Sharma has also referred the following decisions:- (i) Himalayan Tiles & Marble (P) Ltd. v. Francis Victor Coutinho, (1980) 3 SCC 223 (ii) Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd. v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Neyvely, (1995) 1 SCC 221 (iii) DDA v. Bhola Nath Sharma, (2011) 2 SCC 54 5. Per contra, Ms. Bezbaruah, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 to 30 submits that the appellant herein is not a necessary party and in the reference letter of the District Collector, Biswanath, the name of the appellant finds no mention. Further, Ms. Bezbaruah submits that the appellant was represented by Advocate Pranjal Upadhaya before the learned reference Court and a perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that said Pranjal Upadhaya was heard by the learned reference Court. Ms. Bezbaruah also submits that as the appellant is not a necessary party and as such it was not impleaded in the reference proceeding and that the matter of compensation is pending since long and the respondent herein are suffering a lot for the same. 6. However, to a pointed query of this Court, Ms. Bezbaruah submits that for impleadment of the appellant an application was filed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner and the same was not disposed of. Upon a further query, she submits that except the cause title of the judgment, there is nothing on the record to show that Pranjal Upadhaya had represented the appellant herein, before the learned Reference Court. 7. In reply, Mr. Sharma submits that the appellant herein had now engaged Advocate Pranjal Upadhyay to represent it before the learned Reference Court. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Government Advocate submits that Pranjal Upadyaha was the Advocate for the District Collector and that he is not aware of if he was engaged by the appellant herein, in the reference proceeding. Mr. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Government Advocate submits that Pranjal Upadyaha was the Advocate for the District Collector and that he is not aware of if he was engaged by the appellant herein, in the reference proceeding. Mr. Bhattacharyya also submits that the impugned judgment and order may be set-aside and the matter may be remanded to the learned Reference Court, with a direction to implead the appellant herein, in the reference proceeding and to pass a fresh judgment after hearing all the parties and further to fix a timeline for carrying out the said exercise by the learned reference Court. 9. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record. Also perused the decisions referred by Mr. Sharma, the learned Senior counsel for the appellant. 10. The issue of impleadment of the requiring body as party in the proceeding before the District Collector in the land acquisition proceeding and also in the reference proceeding, was dealt with by Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions. In the case of Himalayan Tiles & Marble (P) Ltd. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “It seems to us that the definition of ‘a person interested’ given in Section 18 [obviously Section 3(b)] 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. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the lands were actually acquired for the purpose of the company and once the land vested in the Government, after acquisition, it stood transferred to the company under the agreement entered into between the company and the Government. Thus, it cannot be said that the company had no claim or title to the land at all. Secondly, since under the agreement the company had to pay the compensation, it was most certainly interested in seeing that a proper quantum of compensation was fixed so that the company may not have to pay a very heavy amount of money. Thus, it cannot be said that the company had no claim or title to the land at all. Secondly, since under the agreement the company had to pay the compensation, it was most certainly interested in seeing that a proper quantum of compensation was fixed so that the company may not have to pay a very heavy amount of money. For this purpose, the company could undoubtedly appear and adduce evidence on the question of the quantum of compensation.” And thereafter, it was concluded that: “Thus the preponderance of judicial opinion seems to favour the view that the definition of ‘person interested’ must be liberally 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 the compensation. In our opinion, this view accords with the principles of equity, justice and good conscience. How can it be said that a person for whose benefit the land is acquired and who is to pay the compensation is not a person interested even though its stake may be extremely vital? For instance, the land acquisition proceedings may be held to be invalid and thus a person concerned is completely deprived of the benefit which is proposed to be given to him. Similarly, if such a person is not heard by the Collector or a court, he may have to pay a very heavy compensation which, in case he is allowed to appear before a court, he could have satisfied it that the compensation was far too heavy having regard to the nature and extent of the land. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view taken by the Orissa High Court or even by the Calcutta High Court that a company, local authority or a person for whose benefit the land is acquired is not an interested person. We are satisfied that such a person is vitally interested both in the title to the property as also in the compensation to be paid therefor because both these factors concern its future course of action and if decided against him, seriously prejudice his rights.” 11. Then in the case of Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “12. Then in the case of Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme 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. 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 [ (1980) 3 SCC 223 : (1980) 3 SCR 235 ] 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. 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 Order 1 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 Order 1 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. Then again in paragraph No.14, it has been held as under:- 14. If there is no right of hearing or appeal given to the beneficiary and if the State does not file the appeal or if filed with delay and it was dismissed, is it not the beneficiary who undoubtedly bears the burden of the compensation, who would be the affected person? Is it not interested to see that the appellate court would reassess the evidence and fix the proper and just compensation as per law? For instance the reference court determined market value at Rs 1,00,000 while the prevailing market value of the land is only Rs 10,000. Who is to bear the burden? Suppose State appeal was dismissed due to refusal to condone the delay, is it not an unjust and illegal award? Many an instance can be multiplied. For instance the reference court determined market value at Rs 1,00,000 while the prevailing market value of the land is only Rs 10,000. Who is to bear the burden? Suppose State appeal was dismissed due to refusal to condone the delay, is it not an unjust and illegal award? Many an instance can be multiplied. But suffice it to state that when the beneficiary for whose benefit the land is acquired is served with the notice and brought on record at the stage of enquiry by the Collector and reference court under Section 18 or in an appeal under Section 54 , it/they would be interested to defend the award under Section 11 or Section 26 or would file an appeal independently under Section 54 etc. against the enhanced compensation. As a necessary or proper party affected by the determination of higher compensation, the beneficiary must have a right to challenge the correctness of the award made by the reference court under Section 18 or in appeal under Section 54 etc. Considered from this perspective we are of the considered view that the appellant-Company is an interested person within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act and is also a proper party, if not a necessary party under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. The High Court had committed manifest error of law in holding that the appellant is not a person interested. The orders of the High Court are accordingly set aside. 12. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bhola Nath Sharma (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 32. Section 50(2) represents statutory embodiment of one of the facets of the rules of natural justice. The object underlying this section is to afford an opportunity to the local authority or company to participate in the proceedings held before the Collector or the court for determining the amount of compensation and to show that claim made by the landowner for payment of compensation is legally untenable or unjustified. This is possible only if the Collector or the court concerned gives notice to the local authority or the company concerned. If notice is not given, the local authority or the company cannot avail the opportunity envisaged in Section 50(2) to adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. This is possible only if the Collector or the court concerned gives notice to the local authority or the company concerned. If notice is not given, the local authority or the company cannot avail the opportunity envisaged in Section 50(2) to adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. Therefore, even though the plain language of that section does not, in terms, cast a duty on the Collector or the court to issue notice to the local authority or the company to appear and adduce evidence, the said requirement has to be read as implicit in the provision, else the same will become illusory. Then it has concluded its finding as under:- 42. In view of the above discussion, we hold that: (i) DDA falls within the definition of the expressions “local authority” [Section 3(aa)] and “person interested” [Section 3(b)] of the Act; (ii) DDA was entitled to participate in the proceedings held before the Land Acquisition Collector; (iii)the failure of the Land Acquisition Collector to issue notice to DDA and give an opportunity to it to adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation payable to the landowners was fatal to the award passed by him; (iv) DDA was entitled to notice and opportunity to adduce evidence before the Reference Court could enhance market value of the acquired land entitling the respondents to claim higher compensation and, as no notice or opportunity was given to DDA by the Reference Court, the judgments rendered by it are liable to be treated as nullity; (v) the Division Bench of the High Court also committed serious error by further enhancing the amount of compensation payable to the contesting respondents without requiring them to implead DDA as party-respondent so as to enable it to contest their prayer for grant of higher compensation. 13. Now, adverting to the facts herein this case, I find that admittedly, the land was acquired for the use of the appellant, who is a requiring body. 13. Now, adverting to the facts herein this case, I find that admittedly, the land was acquired for the use of the appellant, who is a requiring body. And as such, the appellant is a person interested as defined in Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act , which provides that the expression “person interested” includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land. It is also well settled that the definition of person interested 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. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Himalayan Tiles & Marble (P) Ltd. (supra ) , that the beneficiary, i.e. local authority or company, a cooperative society registered under the relevant State law, or statutory authority was held to be a person interested to determine just and proper compensation for the acquired land and is an aggrieved person. 14. Thus, from the submission of Mr. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, and also from the documents placed on record and also from a perusal of the order of the learned Reference Court, this Court left no doubt in mind that the appellant herein is a person interested upon the acquired land. That being so, the appellant herein is a proper party, though not a necessary party. 15. And admittedly and indisputably, the appellant herein was not impleaded as a party in the land acquisition proceeding and also before the proceeding of the learned reference Court. Admittedly, also no notice was issued to the appellant herein in spite of the application No.265/2023 being filed by the Additional District Collector, Biswanath, on 16.02.2023, to implead the appellant herein, was not disposed of by passing any order. It is well settled that the beneficiary has the right to be heard by the Collector or the Court. Admittedly, also no notice was issued to the appellant herein in spite of the application No.265/2023 being filed by the Additional District Collector, Biswanath, on 16.02.2023, to implead the appellant herein, was not disposed of by passing any order. It is well settled that the beneficiary has the right to be heard by the Collector or the Court. In the case of Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd. (supra ) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court went on to show that the language of Order I Rule 10 CPC, in 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 and so, it is concomitantly a proper party if not a necessary party to the proceedings under Order I Rule 10 CPC and denial of the right to a person interested is in negation of fair and just procedure offending Article 14 of the Constitution. 16. In the present appeal, the appellant is the requiring body who required the land and has to pay compensation for the landowners. But, neither notice was issued to the appellant nor it was impleaded in spite of a Petition No.265/2023 being filed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner before the learned Reference Court. And as such, the right to be heard of the appellant stands violated, which is a valuable and salutary right and denial of such right to person interested. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd. (supra) denial of the right to be heard to person interested is negation of fair and just procedure offending Article 14 of the Constitution. 17. It is well settled in catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court that right to fair trial is a fundamental right. In a fair trial, fair opportunity has to be given to both the parties, which is denied in the case in hand. 18. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment and order is arbitrary and illegal as the same violates the right of the appellant, as guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. And on such count, the same requires interference of this Court. 19. Mr. 18. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment and order is arbitrary and illegal as the same violates the right of the appellant, as guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. And on such count, the same requires interference of this Court. 19. Mr. Sharma, learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that though the appeal has not yet been admitted, yet, at the very threshold the impugned judgment and order can be set aside as the same being passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice as the appellant herein was never heard in the reference proceeding. In support of his submission, Mr. Sharma has referred to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in RFA No.36(SH)/2002. 20. I have carefully gone through the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in RFA No.36(SH)/2002, dated 04.07.2005. It appears that dealing with similar appeal filed by Power Grid Corporation, the Division Bench has set aside the impugned judgment and order in that appeal at the very threshold and remanded the matter back to the Reference Court to implead the Power Grid Corporation as respondent in the reference proceeding and to issue notice and also to afford opportunity to the Power Grid Corporation to contest the claim of the respondent of the said case. 21. Thus, drawing premises from the decision of Division Bench of this Court in RFA No.36(SH)/2002 and also taking note of the submission of learned counsel for all the parties, this Court is inclined to dispose of this appeal at this motion stage itself, as the impugned judgment and order being passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice i.e. without impleading the appellant herein and without giving an opportunity of hearing to it. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 04.03.2024 stands set aside and quashed. 22. The matter stands remanded to the learned reference Court, Biswanath, with a direction to proceed with the same from the stage of filing of the application No.265/2023, dated 16.02.2023 and thereafter, to hear the matter afresh by affording an opportunity of being heard to all the person interested, including appellant and to pass a fresh order. 23. 22. The matter stands remanded to the learned reference Court, Biswanath, with a direction to proceed with the same from the stage of filing of the application No.265/2023, dated 16.02.2023 and thereafter, to hear the matter afresh by affording an opportunity of being heard to all the person interested, including appellant and to pass a fresh order. 23. Since the matter is pending for a quite long period, this Court would like to request the learned reference Court to make an endeavour to dispose of the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of four months. 24. In terms of above, this appeal stands disposed of.