ACADEMY OF GENERAL EDUCATION MANIPAL Vs. S VENKATARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision petition under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises out of and is directed against the order dated 15.12.1975 on I.A.4, in OS.No.24 of 1973 on the file of the Court of the Principal Munsiff at Udupi rejecting petitioner's claim to be impleaded as a party-defendant in the said suit.

(2.) The facts, in so far as they are material for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition, are the following: pertain lands situate in S.No.415 1 of Shivalli village, Udupi Taluk in the District of South Kanara, were, amongst other lands, the subject matter of a notification dated 30.8.1962 issued under sub-section(1) of S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act followed by the final notification dated 18-4-65 under S.6 of the said Act, the proposed acquisition having been stated to be for the benefit of the petitioner viz., the Academy of General Education, Manipal. The plaintiff in the suit-a certain S.Venkatraj- claiming to be the owner of the said property has challenged the legality of these notifications. On 30th March 1974 the petitioner filed the implead- ing application, I.A.4 contending that the proposed acquisition was for its benefit, that in pursuance of the agreement in this behalf certain sums of money had come to be deposited by the petitioner with Govt. that in pursuance of the said proceedings of acquisition certain lands belonging to other owners had already been put in its possession and that petitioner had such direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the suit as entitled it to participate and contest the proceedings as a party-defendant. On 15.12.1975 the learned Munsiff dismissed the application holding that the petitioner in I.A..No.4 was neither a necessary party nor a proper party and that its impleading was not necessary for an effectual adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit. The correctness of this view is challenged in this petition.

(3.) Sri Tukaram S.Pai, learned Counsel for the petitioner very strenuously contended that the undisputed fact that the acquisition pursuant to the impugned notifications was for the benefit of petitioner and the further fact that the petitioner had deposited monies towards the cost of acquistion with the Govt. in pursuance of an agreement in that behalf would clearly show that the petitioner had a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the litigation and that accordingly it was entitled to be impleaded to the suit. He further stated that subsequent to the institution of the suit an award had also come to be made in the proceedings for acquisition and that circumstance, according to Sri Pai, would make the position a-fortiori.