PERCIVAL JOSEPH PAREIRA Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The submissions of the learned counsel for the parties were heard on 7th October, 2009. The judgment was reserved. Accordingly, the petition is today placed for judgment.

(2.) This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of the proceedings of a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1894"). The petitioner is the claimant in the said reference. By the impugned order, the third respondent (The City Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited hereinafter referred to as "CIDCO") has been directed to be added as an opponent to the land acquisition reference under section 18 of the said Act of 1894.

(3.) A reference will have to be made to the facts of the case. The notification under section 4 of the said Act of 1894 in respect of the acquired land was issued on 24th September, 1986. The declaration under section 6 of the said Act of 1894 was issued on 17th September, 1987. After the award dated 18th September 1989 was made, an application under section 18 of the said Act of 1894 was filed by the petitioner on the basis of which a reference under section 18 of the said act of 1894 has been made to the Court. It must be noted here that the third respondent (CIDCO) made an application at Exhibit 38 on 7th April, 2004 contending that the said respondent was the beneficiary of the acquisition and on the basis of an agreement made by the said respondent with the Government of Maharashtra, compensation will be payable by the said respondent. Reliance was placed on sub-section (2) of section 50 of the said Act of 1894 and it was contended that the CIDCO was a necessary party to the land acquisition reference under section 18 of the said Act of 1894. By the judgment and order dated 27th October, 2004 the said application was rejected.