MAHAUVA MUNICIPALITY MAHUVA Vs. MEHTA KIRITKUMAR UMEDCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition raises an interesting question, as to whether the acquiring body for whose benefit the land which is proposed to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (which will be hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is necessary or a proper party in the suit filed by a person interested in the land challenging the validity of the acquisition proceedings stated by the Government. The trial Court has held in Special Civil Suit No. 43 of 1971, in which this question arose for decision, against the Mahuva Municipality, the acquiring body (petitioner). The petitioner-municipality has, therefore, come in revision against that order, dated 8th July, 1971, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhavnagar, in that suit below Ex. 14.

(2.) The learned Chief Justice who issued 'rule', has ordered this revision petition to heard by a Division Bench as two single Judge of this Court in two different revision petition have taken different views.

(3.) Mr. R. A. Mehta, appearing for Mr. K. g. Vakharia, for the petitioner, has urged that the acquisition proceeding in question were stated at the instance of the petitioner-municipality. In the plaint, allegation were made by the plaintiff (opponents Nos. 1 to 4) against the petitioner. The land was sought to be acquired of the purposes of the said Municipality of its Nutan Nagar Scheme No. 2. It is, therefore, submitted by Mr. Mehta that the petitioner is vitally interested in the result of the suit. It was urged by him that the petitioner was a necessary party or at any rate, a proper party, and consequently, the trial Court was not justified in refusing to add it as a party to the suit. he also invited our attention to the agreement which the local authority is required to enter into with the Government when such proceeding are stated at the instance of a local authority. That form of an agreement has been referred to in extensor in the Manual of Land Acquisition for the State of Gujarat, written by Anderson, 1971 edition, page 103 and 104. That agreement indicates that the costs of such acquisition are to be borne by the local authority. Mr. Mehta has laid considerable emphasis on the latter part of this agreement, which reads: