Natural justice in compensation inquiries requires hearing both sides and disclosure of relied-on material; ex parte awards are invalid.

Compensation determined by a Competent Authority under the Act is a quasi-judicial exercise affecting rival interests, so natural justice requires notice, disclosure of the material relied upon, and an effective opportunity to meet the opposite case. The wide procedural powers under the Rules do not remove that duty. Where awards are made on material collected behind one party's back, the breach of audi alteram partem renders the awards invalid and they may be challenged in writ proceedings even though a statutory remedy before the District Judge exists. The matters must be decided afresh after hearing both sides and allowing evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Competent Authority, while determining compensation under the Act, was bound to hear both sides and disclose the material relied upon; (ii) Whether the compensation awards were vitiated for breach of natural justice and could be quashed notwithstanding the statutory remedy before the District Judge.

Issue (i): Whether the Competent Authority, while determining compensation under the Act, was bound to hear both sides and disclose the material relied upon.

Analysis: The compensation scheme under the Act shows that the Competent Authority determines compensation affecting two contesting interests, namely the landholder and the acquiring body. The determination is not a mere administrative exercise but a quasi-judicial function. An inquiry in that setting necessarily imports notice, opportunity of hearing, disclosure of material relied upon, and an opportunity to meet the opposite case. The wide procedural discretion under the Rules does not dispense with the basic duty to hear both sides. The availability of powers to take affidavits, summon records, or issue commissions reinforces, rather than negatives, the obligation to conduct a fair inquiry.

Conclusion: Yes. The Competent Authority was bound to hear both sides and follow the requirements of natural justice.

Issue (ii): Whether the compensation awards were vitiated for breach of natural justice and could be quashed notwithstanding the statutory remedy before the District Judge.

Analysis: The record showed that the acquiring body was not given an effective opportunity to meet the material used against it, and the awards were made on material collected behind its back. This amounted to a flagrant violation of audi alteram partem. The statutory remedy before the District Judge did not bar writ relief because an order made in breach of natural justice is a nullity and may be challenged directly. The proceedings, therefore, could not stand and had to be taken up afresh with both parties being heard and allowed to adduce evidence.

Conclusion: Yes. The awards were invalid and were liable to be set aside despite the alternative statutory remedy.

Final Conclusion: The compensation awards were quashed, the claimants' writ petitions failed, the acquiring body's challenge succeeded, and the compensation matters were restored for fresh adjudication after notice and hearing to both sides.

Ratio Decidendi: Where compensation is to be determined in a quasi-judicial inquiry affecting rival interests, the authority must observe natural justice by hearing both sides and disclosing the material relied upon, and an award made in breach of that duty is a nullity despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy.

---