NIRAKAR DEU DESAI Vs. NIRAKAR DEVASTHAN OF PALOLEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE common question of law arises in all these five revision applications and therefore they were heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment.

(2.) THE point for determination which arises is whether a person who had not been a party to the Land Acquisition proceedings before the Collector can seek impleadment as a party to the proceedings before the District Court in a reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called as "the said Act". In all these matters, the reference Court placing reliance upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of (Govind Narayan Lotlikar v. Smt. Savitribai Roghuvira Lotlikar and others), reported in A. I. R. 1987 Bom. 32 has held that a person who was not a party to the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be added as party to the proceedings before the Reference Court in a reference under section 30 of the Act, even if such party has or has acquired any right over the land which was acquired and which was the subject matter in the Land Acquisition proceedings in which the reference has been made. In all these five matters applying the test laid down by this Court in the said Govind Narayan Lotlikar's case (supra), the applications filed by the intervenors were dismissed by the impugned common order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have approached this Court in these revision applications.

(3.) SHRI S. Usgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioners, Shri L. V. Talaulikar and Shri N. Sardessai, Advocates for the respondents were heard at length in these petitions. The Advocates have relied upon various decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of various High Courts. Moreover, for the purpose of decision in the matter, suffice to refer to three decisions of the Apex Court. The decisions relevant in the matter are those in (Smt Ambey Devi v. State of Bihar and another), reported in A. I. R. 1996 S. C. 1513. (Sunderlal v. Paramsukhdas and others), reported in A. I. R. 1968 S. C. 366, (Dr. G. H. Grant v. The State of Bihar), reported in A. I. R. 1966 S. C. 237,