GORAKHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY GORAKHPUR Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question arises in this bunch of writ petitions. It is whether the company or the authority for whose benefit a land is being acquired by the Government is entitled to apply for impleading itself in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and whether it can be so impleaded by the civil court.

(2.) At the instance of the writ petitioner, the Gorakhpur Development Authority, Gorakhpur, the Government notified certain lands in village Rampur and other villages under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Proceedings were accordingly taken and award passed. Possession of the land was also taken and delivered to the Authority. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the owners of the land applied for making a reference to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act, which was done. One of such reference is L.A. Reference No. 67/87 (concerned in C.M.W.P. No. 22107 of 1987). In this reference, the Gorakhpur Development Authority applied for impleading itself as a party respondent. Its case was that since the land is being acquired for its purpose and also because whatever compensation is payable has to be paid by it, it is a necessary party to the said reference and accordingly be impleaded as such. It also stated in its application that the development work was actually in progress on the land acquired. This application was opposed by the land-owner. According to him, the land is being acquired by the Government, and not by the Authority and it has no right to be impleaded in the said reference. Whatever compensation is determined by the court will be paid by the Government to him and the Authority does not come into the picture. It was submitted that Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. does not apply in view of sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act. The application for impleadment has been dismissed by the learned District Judge, against which the present writ petitions have been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the Gorakhpur Development Authority, the petitioner herein, submitted, on the strength of the decision of the Supreme Court in Himalaya Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. v. Francis Victor Coutinho, AIR 1980 SC 1118 that the Authority for whose benefit the land is being acquired and who has ultimately to bear the burden of paying the entire compensation amount is a 'person interested' within the meaning of the said expression as defined in clause (b) of Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act and is, therefore, entitled to be impleaded in the pending reference. He brought to our notice that Section 53 of the Act applies the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to the proceedings before the Court under the Act, and, therefore, Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. is available and attracted. He relied upon certain decisions of this Court and of the Supreme Court in support of the said proposition.