CHERUKURI NAVEENDRA Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION RAILWAY WAGON REPAIR WORKSHOP VIJAYAWADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner here in is a minor represented by the next-friend his maternal grand father. I.A. No. 3246 of 1975 in O.P. No. 227 of 1975 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, was filed under section 151 and Order 1, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the said petition the petitioner prayed that he be impleaded as the 4th claimant in the O.P. The said O.P.No. 227 of 1975 is the result of a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The father of the petitioner was one of the claimants before the Land Acquisition Officer and sought a reference under section 18 to the Court. The father of the petitioner, who was at that time the manager of the joint family consisting of himself and hisson, the minor petitioner, undoubtedly represented the family So the reference at his instance Was made acting as the head of the joint family. On the facts, it would also appear that there was a reference to the Court in O.P.No. 121 of 1975, which was a reference under section 31 of the Act. In that O.P. there was a compromise. As per the terms of that con promise, the minor petitioner herein had become entitled to the compensation amount. As a result of the compromise order ir O.P No. 112 of 1975, indisputably the petitioner herein had become entitled to the compensation amount. This fact is not disputed. His father as manager of the family had already sought a reference under section 18 of the Act and the same is pending ir O.P.No. 227 of 1975. As per the Compromise Orderin O.P.No.112 1975 the petitioner's father had ceased to possess any interest and the interest with respect to the compensation was conferred upon the minor son who had filed I.A. No. 3246 of 1976 to be implead ed as the 4th claimant invoking, inter alia the provisions of Order 1, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application was opposed by the Referring Officer. The lower Court had dismissed the application observing as follows:-

(2.) In this revision petition, the above order is challenged by Sri Y.B. Tatarao, for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has stepped into the shoes of his father at whose instance a reference under section 18 of the Act was made and that there fore isentitled to be impleaded as a party to the Original Petition. He "Submitted that the petitioner's father by reason of the compromise in O.P.No. 112 of 1975 had lost all interest in prosecuting the claim for enhancement in the O.P. As the petitioner himself alone thereafter had become interested in the enhanced compensation, he should be impleaded a.s a party to the O.P. so that he can lead evldence to prove the case for enhanced compensation. In Md. Ibrahim Sahib v. Land Acquisition Officer it was recognised that a Manager of a Hindu family may make a claim for enhancement on behalf of the joint family of which he is the Manager In the Instant case on the date wen the referance under section 18 was sought by the father, indisputably he was the Manager of the joint family Subsequently, by reason of the compromise between the father and son the son became interested in the compensation amount to the exclusion of the father. In my view the position is very similar to a case considered by a Division Bench of this Court dealing with a case under the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act. The Division Bench in Mohammed Hussain v. Collector Warangal as can be -seen from the head-not , observed as follows:-

(3.) The reasoning of the Court below, which I have extracted above, is not sound. I hold that in the circumstances of the case the petitioner is a necessary party who is entitled to continue the proceedings in the right of the father at whose instance as the Manager of his joint family a reference under section 18 of the Act was made to the Court. The Order in I.A.No. 3246 of 1976 is set aside and the said I.A. is orderd.