P L D 1960 Dacca 461 (PLP)

AMIN AHMED, C. J.‑This appeal is from a decision of the District Judge, Pabna‑Kushtia, in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 74 of 1946, the appellant being the Pabna Electric Supply Company Limited for whose benefit the Government acquired the land in question under the Land Acquisition Act (which we shall hereinafter call as the Act).

2. The reference was made under section 18 of the Act at the instance of the different proprietors of the land against the award of the Collector. The learned District Judge in the said Reference Case No. 74 of ‑ 1946 allowed the claim of the res pondent Kaliprasad Bhattacharyya and directed that he should be paid Rs. 3,454‑5‑0, that is, the difference according to his order being one of Rs. 1,700, and the present appeal has also been valued accordingly.

3. As soon as this appeal was taken up, we asked the learned Advocate for the appellant, though no one appeared for the respondent, to satisfy us that the appeal by the Company for whose benefit the land was acquired lies against the decision of the learned District Judge allowing a Reference under the said Act. We also drew the attention of Mr. Chowdhury to the case of The Municipal Corporation of Pabna v. Jogendra Narain Raikut and others (13 C .W N 116), and also to the provisions of section 50 of the Act. The learned Advocate, we must say, has very candidly stated that he cannot claim that this appeal is competent against the order complained of and he has been good enough to refer to another case, i.e., the case of The Comilla Electric Supply Ltd. v. Messrs , East Bengal Bank, Ltd., and others (43 C W N 973). Apart from these cases, we find that the provisions of section 50 and section 41 of the Act will indicate that although the person for whose benefit the land is acquired is entitled to appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determination of compensation, he has no right to ask for a Reference under section 18 of the Act and much less has he a right to prefer an appeal against a, decision of the District Judge made upon a Reference under section 18 of the Act. Section 50 of the Act is as follows: "(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." We may, however, refer to the following observation from the judgment of the case of the Municipal Corporation of Pabna v. Jogendra Narain Raikut and others: " A company or corporation for whose benefit any land may be acquired by the Collector is not a necessary party in the proceeding and there can be no doubt that no proceeding can properly go on in the absence of the Secretary of State for India in Council. Under section 50 of the Act, a company or a local authority for whose benefit the acquisition is made may appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. But that is in the nature of the addition of a party simply for the purpose of watching the proceedings or assisting the Secretary of State. Such a company or local authority has not the power to ask for a Reference under section 18 of the Act, neither does the Act give it the right of appeal."

4. We may mention that although the case of the Comilla Electric Supply Ltd. v. Messrs East Bengal Bank, Ltd., and others supports the view taken by us, the facts of that case are somewhat different. In that case, the land was acquired not only for the benefit of the Comilla Electric Supply Limited but some of the lands acquired by the Government were also the lands of the said Company, and it was, therefore, held that the proviso to section 50 (2) of the Act relates only to that subsection, i.e., it only limits the rights of a company at whose cost land is acquired but it does not affect its general right as a claimant in the land acquisition proceedings and, as the company itself had an interest as a tenant or otherwise, it is a person interested within the meaning of clause (b) of section 3 of the Act and has a right of demanding a Reference under section 18 of the Act.

5. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is not competent and is accordingly dismissed. As no one appeared for the res pondent, we, however, do not award any costs. ASIR, J.‑I agree with my Lord the Chief Justice. K. B. A. Appeal dismissed.