LAKSHMI BAI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four revisions raise a common question whether the petitioner in each case is entitled to be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC as a party- respondent in the relevant O.P. an apportionment case, on the file, of the Additional District Judge, Adilabad. The Addl. district Judge, dismissed each individual application filed by the revision petitioner relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Nalgonda Municipality V. Mohiuddin (1) AIR 1964 AP305. In support of these revisions Mr. Venkataratnam, learned counsel for the individual petitioners, submitted that on facts Nalgonda Municipality case (1Supra) stands to be distinguished. His further submission is that while a person who is not a party to the reference made under Section, 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, cannot invoke Order 1 Rule 10 CPC the party claiming to be interested to safeguard his or her rights in an apportionment case arisingon a reference made under sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act can always apply under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and participate in the enquiry to be made in the apportionment case though no doubt the party has also a right to obtain redress by instituting a suit in a civil court.

(2.) The following facts become material. We are concerned in these revisions with certain lands in' Mangurla village which were compulsorily acquired for the construction of Sathnala Project. The lands comprised in S Nos. 7, 14 and 63 of that village were some of the lands so acquired concerning which the award was made by the Land Acquisition Officer on 25-4-1979. While filling Form No. 8, the names of the awardees for the land in S. No. 7 have been furnished as under

(3.) In respect of land in S No 14 Rasheeduddin Khan made a claim disputing the shares of Hidayat Mohiuddin Khan and others. As in respect of that extent also, the case is pending before the Land Ceiling Tribunal, the reference under Sec. 30 and 31 (2) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 was made stating that one Sri Padam Ramji is the protected tenant of the land and he is eligible for 60% of the compensation. Regarding the land in S. No. 63, the reference is made because the ownership in respect of that S. No. is in dispute and it was stated that as on the date of the award there are no protected tenants existing on the land. In those reference made under Secs. 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, the names of the individual petitioners do not find a place.