BHAU KRISHNA SHINDE Vs. VATSALA BHAU DHAMALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Application is for challenging the order passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, senior Division, Ahmednagar on 19-11-1986, below Exh. 30 in l. A. R. No. 6 of 1980, wherein the request of the respondents to add them as a party to L. A. R. No. 6 of 1980, by invoking the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil procedure with section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, has been accepted by the said Court.

(2.) 2 Hectares and 16 Ares land from the Gat No. 381 of pimpaldoh has been acquired by the State of Maharashtra for the purposes of construction of the percolation tank. The award has been passed under section 12 and so far as the block No. 381 is concerned, the Land Acquisition Officer has observed that the recorded Kabjedars are Bhau Ranu, saraswatibai Bhaurao Haral Bhau Bala Dalvi and Bhau Krishna shinde. The amount of compensation be paid to them according to their shares. However, as there was a dispute between the parties interested, namely, Shahu Ranu Dalvi, Saraswati bhaurao Haral, Bhau Bala Dalvi and Bhau Krishna Shinde as to the apportionment of the compensation or a portion of the compensation settled by the Special Land Acquisition Officer settling the award passed under section 11, the said Special land Acquisition Officer has made a reference for the decision of the District Court, Ahmednagar by order dated 29-12-1979. In the said reference, in a column of the particulars of disputes, the ownership of the acquired land was shown to be disputed in respect of Gat No. 381. The Land acquisition Officer has also shown the apportionment of the amount in the name of the respective parties, made on the basis of the 7/12 extract of the land. However, in view of the dispute, the matter has been referred under section 30. While this reference was pending, the application Exh. 34 was preferred and it was requested that the name of vatsalabai Bhau Dhavle be shown as opponent No. 2 and for the said purpose the powers under Order 1, Rule 10 of the civil Procedure Code may be invoked by the Civil Judge senior Division. As the impleading of the party was objected, the Civil Judge decided as to whether the respondent No. 1 should be made a party to the said proceeding and has ultimately allowed the said application as stated earlier.

(3.) THE main question raised by the learned Counsel Shri s. C. Bora appearing for the petitioner is, whether the order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code is applicable to a land reference referred under section 30 by the collector for the purpose of settling the dispute in respect of the apportionment of the amount of compensation fixed by the Collector and/or Special Land Acquisition Officer under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act.