SHANKAR WAMANRAO Vs. BHOYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, Mrs. Wandile, learned AGP for respondents 2 and 3 and Mr. Palshikar, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

(2.) BY this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 21-12-2006 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1591/2006 setting aside the order dated 29-9-2005 passed by 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior division, Nagpur in Land Acquisition Case No. 196/2000.

(3.) BRIEFLY, the facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under : by Notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act" for short) which was published in the official gazette dated 19-3-1998, state of Maharashtra acquired lands for the public purpose. The land bearing survey No. 107 situated at mouza Chikhali Nalha belonging to the appellant was part of the acquired land. Respondent No. 3 - Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award dated 6-7-1999. The appellant sought reference under section 18 of the Act vide application dated 11-1-2000 seeking higher compensation. On 23-4-2003 respondent No. 1 filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of civil Procedure, seeking permission to intervene in Land Acquisition Case No. 196/2000 on the ground that she was co-owner of the acquired land and as such she was necessary party to the reference proceedings. The said application was opposed by the appellant. The appellant denied that respondent No. 1 was the co-owner. By order dated 29-9-2005 the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior division, Nagpur dismissed the application holding that if the said application was allowed, it would amount to enlarging the scope of the reference. The learned Judge held that respondent No. 1 was neither proper nor necessary party. The said order was challenged by respondent No. 1 by filing Writ Petition No. 1591/2006. The learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 21-12-2006 held that respondent No. 1 was a person interested and directed the Reference court to add her as party respondent in the reference proceedings. The appellant has challenged the said judgment by filing the present appeal.