RAMDHANI Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR KABRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT civil revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 4.2.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 18, Varanasi in Reference No. 330 of 1987, Krishna Kumar v. District Magistrate, Varanasi, rejecting the application moved on behalf of the revisionists under Order 1 Rule 10(2), C.P.C. for arraying them as party in the aforementioned proceeding.

(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that for the purpose of construction of National Highway, land in dispute had been acquired, award was made on 7.1.1987 and thereafter reference was made, which was numbered as Reference No. 330 of 1987, Krishna Kumar v. District Magistrate, Varanasi. In the said reference, revisionists after twenty one year of reference moved an application contending therein that they have acquired knowledge of the reference of the property in question, which has been acquired, qua the same they have got Bhumidhari Right with Transferable Right, as such they are necessary parties. Said application was objected to by filing objection on 24.10.2008 and thereafter, same has been rejected. At this juncture present Civil Revision has been filed.

(3.) JUDGMENT quoted above is clear that procedure prescribed under Sections 18, 30 of Land Acquisition Act is in inconsistent with procedure prescribed under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. would apply to implead a necessary or proper party to effectuate complete adjudication of all the disputes having arisen between all the necessary or proper parties who may be bound by the decision. Said question does not arise since inconsistent procedure has been prescribed under the Act. Making an application in writing under sub-section (1) and within the limitation prescribed under sub-section (2) of the Section 18 are conditions precedent for the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference under Section 18. In this background provision of Order 1 Rule 10(2), C.P.C. cannot be pressed. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shyamali Das v. Illa Chowdhary and others, (2006) 12 SCC 300, has clearly taken the view that in the proceeding under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where the person is claiming title to the acquired land, he cannot be termed. The person interested within the meaning of Section 3(b) and application for impleadment in reference proceedings, on premises that suit had been filed is of no consequence. Case of revisionists does not stand on better footing. Admittedly, till date in title suit filed, there is no declaration in favour of the revisionists and as such in this background there is no infirmity whatsoever in dismissing the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2), C.P.C., as they are neither necessary party or proper party.