UNION OF INDIA Vs. KUPPAYAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revision petitions are directed against the orders made in REA. Nos. 255/91,252/ 91 and 558/91 in R. EP. Nos. 127/87 in L. A. O. P. No. 9 of 1986, R. E. P. 165/87 in L. A. O. P. No. 10 of 1986 and R. E. P. 17/91 in L. A. O. P. No. 3 of 1987 respectively on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem , in which the learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the petitions filed by the revision petitions to implead it as a party in the execution proceedings.

(2.) SHORT facts are: On reference under Sec. 18 of Land Acquisition Act awards were passed in L. A. O. Ps. 9 and 10 of 1986on 23. 1. 1987and in L. A. O. P. No. 3 of 1987 on 9. 7. 1987. The claimants filed execution petitions to realise amounts awarded in those L. A. O. Ps. At that time, the revision petitioner herein had filed the aforesaid R. E. A. Nos. 255, 252 and 558 of 1991 to implead it as a party. That was objected to by the respondents. After hearing the parties, the learned subordinate Judge has dismissed those petitions. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner in the court below has come forward with these three civil revision petitions.

(3.) I am fortified in coming to the above conclusion and construing to act in the above manner because of another reason also. For example, even in this case, the 4 (1) notification was made as early as in 1964. The parties affected by the notification would be left in a nebulous stage right from that date. If by virtue of this amendment made in the Act in 1990, the entire thing is unsettled, that would lead definitely to injunction. In my opinion, that was why in the statement of objects and reasons given in the Land acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, it has been so stated that this amendment was made so as to enable that party for whom acquisition was made to take part and assist the Court in fixing the compensation reasonably. It cannot come at a later stage and putting forth contentions and unsettling the award. It is also worthwhile to note that this amendment was not given any retrospective effect. That is also a factor which impels me to come to a conclusion that this Sec. 20 (d) is not applicable at a stage subsequent to fixing of enhanced compensation.