SOURI RAJALU NAIDU Vs. NARAYANAN NAMBOORIPAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It seems to me that the Application made by the revision petitioner under O.1 R.10 C. P. C. to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings in the Court following a reference by the Collector under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was misconceived. It has been rightly dismissed by the court below although the reason given by it, namely, that the petitioner had given a signed statement to the Collector disclaiming interest in the land acquired (a fact denied by the petitioner and of which there 13 no proof) can hardly bear examination. Admittedly the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the Collector, and he made no claim to the Collector. The dispute occassioning the reference was between the petitioners brother, who claimed a verumpattom interest in the land, and the jenmi of the land. It related to the apportionment of the compensation, and the reference was made at the instance of the jenmi. Now the ground on which the petitioner sought to come on the party array was that he, and not his brother, was entitled to the verumpattom right, and the dispute on which he wanted the court to adjudicate was this dispute between himself and his brother. That, as we have seen, was not the subject matter of the objection taken before the Collector to his award, and S.21 of the Act which expressly restricts the inquiry by the Court to a consideration of the interests of the person affected by the objection, makes it quite clear that it is completely foreign to the scope of that inquiry. Pramathanath v. Secretary of State ( AIR 1930 PC 64 ) is clear authority for the position, if authority were necessary. It follows that the petitioner cannot come on record under O.1 R.10 CPC for agitating a matter which cannot be agitated in the proceedings in question (See Indumati Debi v. Tulsi Thakurani, AIR 1942 Cal. 53 and Manjur Ahmed v. Rajalakshmi, AIR 1956 Cal. 263 ). Krishna Chand v. Jagannath Prasad. (ILR 25 All. 133) relied upon by the petitioner is hardly to the point, for that case relates to a pre-award reference under S.30 of the Act which is not governed by S.21

(2.) It is argued that although S.21 of the Act might preclude the petitioner from agitating his title as against his brother in the present proceedings, he is nevertheless interested, by reason of his title to the verumpattom right, in the apportionment of the compensation as between the jenmi and the tenant, which apportionment forms the subject matter of the objection. Therefore he ought to have been allowed to come on record to contest this question of apportionment with the jenmi though not the question of title with his brother. The short answer is that that is not the purpose for which he wanted to come on record-no mention is made of that either in the application under O.1 R.10 C. P. C. or in the present petition. That apart, the petitioners interests are unaffected by the objection and by the present proceedings.The 3rd proviso to S.31(2) of the Act expressly preserves his rights, if any, whether as against the jenmi or as against his brother. For, it is not as if the property is joint family property and his brother represents him in any manner. Each claims it as his own separate property.

(3.) I dismiss the petition with costs.