HARI RAM NAGALIA Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Mahajan, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 19th Oc tober, 1995 passed by the Additional Dis trict Judge/special Judge, Dehradun in L. A. Case No. 454of 1990, Virendrakumar v. Collector, in reference sent by opposite party No. 2 under Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act praying that the revision may be allowed and the award in Case No. 25 of 1987-88 pertaining to plot Nos. 496, 497 and 499 area 8,83 acres, situate in village Raipur, Pargana Par-wadoon, Tahsil and district Dehradun be set aside.

(2.) THE short and legal question in this revision, which arises, is that if the person interested has not filed objections under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter be called the Act) and the reference is made by the Collector under Section 30/31 (2) of the Act to the decision of the Collector regarding the apportion ment and disbursement of the compensa tion of money, can he apply to the Court i. e. District Judge, under Section 18 of the Act for impleading as a party as he is a person interested within the meaning of ection 3 (b) of the Act?

(3.) SRI S. C. Budhwar, learned Counsel for the respondents has argued that the revisionists are not interested persons as they have not filed objections under Sec tion 9 read with Section 11 of the Act, they are debarred to be impleaded as a party and the order of the Court below is correct. He further submitted that the revisionists have lost the litigation before the Civil Court as well as before the Revenue Court and they have suppressed this fact.