PADMANABHA MENON Vs. BHASKARA MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises from an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Parur, impleading the petitioners as additional defendants in a reference under S. 27 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners who sought to get themselves impleaded were not parties to the proceedings that terminated in the reference by the Land Acquisition Officer. There were three defendants on the array of parties in the proceedings before him. The 1st defendant is the Thandapper holder of the property, the 2nd defendant was a person in possession of the same, and 3rd. defendant claimed that he had rights under a usufructuary mortgage-followed by a lease back in respect of the property. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation to the three defendants jointly. The award states that "the amount will be given on production of title deeds and on the defendants coming to terms. " As the defendants did not come to terms the Land acquisition Officer referred the question of apportionment of the compensation amount to the Court under S. 27 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act. While the reference was pending, the petitioners in the lower court filed an application to get themselves impleaded as additional defendants on the ground that the property actually belonged to them. That application was opposed by the revision petitioner, but the lower court overruled that objection and allowed the petitioners to be impleaded as additional defendants. It is this order that is challenged in this revision petition.

(2.) WHEN the revision petition came up for hearing one of us referred it for decision by a Division Bench as the authorities on the point arising for consideration are not uniform.

(3.) IN Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Umed Laloo AIR. 1942 Sind 82 it was held that in the case of a reference by the Collector under s. 30, a person interested within the meaning of S. 3 (b) of the Act can apply to the court to be impleaded as a party to a reference under S. 30 although his name does not appear in the reference, provided the question raised by him is in essence a dispute already referred. That was a case where an application was made under O. I, R. 10, and the court in considering the application found that the persons sought to be impleaded were necessary parties for a complete adjudication of the question involved in the reference. IN Kishan Chand v. Jagannath Prasad ILR. 25 Allahabad 133 it was held that in a reference under s. 30 the court hearing the reference has got ample jurisdiction to implead all the necessary or proper parties. IN the course of the judgment the learned judge observed as follows: "we see no reason for restraining the wide language of S. 53 and the provisions of S. 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure appear to us to be in no way inconsistent with anything contained in Act No. 1 of 1894. To us it appears distinctly in the interest of all that the questions which arise as to compensation to be paid for a piece of land taken up should be dealt with as far as possible at one and the same time. "