SAVITRI DEVI Vs. BHARPAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed order dated 5th July, 2008 whereby an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC made by the petitioners to be impleaded as a party in a reference forwarded by Land Acquisition Collector to the ADJ under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act was dismissed. The petitioners are daughters of Smt. Bharpai and made application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC claiming that at the time of filing objections and claims, the applications being semi-literate women did not know anything about their right and the Counsel filed objections on behalf of their mother but objections were not filed on their behalf. It was submitted that applicants' mother claimant IP no.1 had transferred land in question to them and thereafter mutation of the land was also done in revenue record and the applicants were recorded as owners/bhumidars and they were also in cultivator possession of the land. The applicants came to know that IP No.1 had filed claim in respect of the land on the basis of a sale deed, in her favour. It is alleged to be a fabricated and false sale deed. The sale deed was allegedly executed by applicant no.1 and was witnessed by applicant no.2. It is stated that this sale deed was got registered by IP No.1 in connivance with Smt. Kalawati and they conspired and her thumb impression was taken on the sale deed and the same was got registered. She stated that she had never executed the sale deed nor got it registered. The applicant no.2 who is shown as witness did not witness the same. It is stated that as per the sale deed executed in their favour by IP No. 1, the applicants were entitled to receive compensation and they made application that their presence was necessary.

(2.) The application was dismissed by the trial Court observing that the applicants were daughters of IP No.1 viz. Bharpai. Initially the land was sold by Bharpai to the applicants and later on applicant no.1 sold the land back to her i.e. to IP No.1. The trial Court observed that the sale deed was acted upon and the mutation was also effected in favour of IP No.1. Considering these facts and in view of judgment of Supreme Court in Smt. Ambey Devi v. State of Bihar and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 1513, the application was dismissed.

(3.) It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioners that in Repaka Bhyravamurthy and Anr. v. Muppidi Venkataraju & Ors. AIR 2002 AP 77 (FB), Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court had considered the implications of Smt. Ambey Devi case (supra) and observed as under: The power of reference under S.30 is wider than the power of reference under S.18. Can it in this situation be said that a person who did not appear before the Land Acquisition Officer has no locus standi to get himself impleaded as a party? The answer to the same must be rendered having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. A person may not appear either having not been issued any notice or otherwise before the Collector and still his interest may be protected by the Collector and an award can be passed in his favour. However, an enquiry made by the Collector under S.11 of the Act cannot be held to have such a repercussion with those who had not been found to be interest in the claims as they would not have say at all. However, a subsequent discovery or question of interest as regard the entitlement to receive the compensation or a part of it by reason of a subsequent event, may give rise to a situation where an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC may be maintainable. The devolution of such interest may not be confined to the situation contained in S.146 of the Code of Civil Procedure, more so, when a question of title is involved. In a reference under Section 30 not only the question of title, but also the status of the parties may be involved. Order 1 Rule 10 confers a wide power upon the court. A party may be added by the Court if he satisfies the provisions specified therein or the Court may, at age of the proceedings, suo motu add a party in the interest of justice. Although normally a plaintiff has more say in the matter of impleadment of parties, an order of impleadment by a Court of law, in relation to a question where the status of the persons is involved, a person may have a right to be impleaded. Moreover, in a given case, a person may not even know that the lands are going to be acquired and thus, he will not be in a position to appear before the Land Acquisition Collector. Even a notice might not have been served upon him. It would be harsh if a person who had been kept in dark or who has been a victim of some fraudulent act, is not impleaded as a party. In such a situation, interest of justice demands that he should be impleaded as a party.