PANDURANG D RANE Vs. VIJABAI V RANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above two Petitions involve a common question and are therefore heard together and disposed of.

(2.) The issue in the Petition that arises is whether a party who was not before the Collector in the Land Acquisition Proceedings can be allowed to intervene in the reference proceedings under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the said Act').

(3.) The Petitioners in both the above Petitions have challenged the Order dated 30.03.2002, by which Order the learned Addl. District Judge, Panaji, has rejected the applications of the Petitioners for being allowed to intervene in the reference proceedings being Land Acquisition Case nos. 81/1999 and 82/1999. Since the Petition involves identical facts, the facts in Writ Petition no. 302/2003 would be referred to for convenience sake, The Petitioners in Writ Petition no. 302/2003 claim to be co-owners of the property "Ambotanem" and the acquired land from Survey no. 752 and 756 (subject matter of Land Acquisition Case no. 81/1999) and from survey no. 667 (subject matter of Land Acquisition Case no. 82/1999), which is a part and parcel of the property "Ambotanem". The Petitioners claim to have inherited the said property from late Babasaheb Krishnarao Rane Sardessai and that the said property "Ambotanem" belongs to them and that they are necessary parties in the said reference proceedings and, therefore, they should be impleaded in the said reference cases. The Petitioners, therefore, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, for intervention in the said reference proceedings.