VADLAMANI SAROJINI DEVI Vs. T SATYANARAYANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRP 3525/81 is against the order adding the respondent as a party in a refeence made under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and C.R.P. 3793/81 is against the order declaining to add the petitioner as a party in the reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is brought to my notice that in Lakshmi Bai Vs. State of A.P. (1984-1, APLJ 242) Ramachandra Raju, J. held that the Bench decision in Nalgonda Municipality Vs. Mohiuddin (A.I.R. 1964 A.P.305) is not a good law in view of the decisions in Grant Vs. State of Bihar ( A.I.R 1966 S.C. 237) and Himalaya Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. Vs. F. C. Coutinho (A.I.R 1980 S.C 1118). It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner in C.R.P 3525/81 that the decision in Himalaya Tiles and Marble (P). Ltd. Vs. FV. Coutinho is concerned with the issue whether the company is a party interested to enable them to file an appeal and the only issue is whether the company which is a beneficiary can be considered as a "party interested" for the purpose of filing the appeal. The question whether a person, who has not availed of the opportunity of requesting for a referance either under Sec. 18 or Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act can be called 'a party interested " so as to enable him to be impleaded as a party under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C has not been considered at all. Therefore it is contended that the decision in Himalaya Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. Vs. F.V.Coutinho (A.I.R 1980 S.C. 1118) is not applicable and further the decision in Nalgonda Municipality Vs. Mohiuddin (A.I.R. 1964 A.P. 305) cannot be stated to have been over-ruled by implication or otherwise by the decisions of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1966 S.C 237 and A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1118.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not without force. In view of the importance of the issue involved and also in view of the fact that it is a matter of general importance, these revision petitions shall be posted before a Division Bench. Pursuant to the order of reference dated 25-3-1987 and upon hearing the arguments of J.V. Suryanarayana Rao, Advocate fdr the Petitioner in C.R.P. No. 3525 of 1981 and of Mr.T. Veerabhadrayya, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No 2 not appearing in person or by Advocate in C R P No 3525 of 1987 and of Mr. M. Jaganadha Sarma, Advocate for the Petitioner in C R P 3793 of 1981 and of Mr J V. Suryanarayana Rao, Advocate for the respondent/1 and 4 and Respondents 2, 3 and 5 not appearing in person or by Advocate. The Court delivered the following :- JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Bench delivered by Amareswari, J.) 1. These two Civil Revision Petitions arise out of connected proceedings. C R P No 3525 of 1981 is filed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry in I A No 166 of 1980 in O P No 122 of 1979 allowing the petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C P C. 2. The facts are briefly as follows:- The Government acquired Ac 2-50 cents in Survey No 552/1 in Rajahmundry. In Award No 15 of 1978 the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs 76,115-85 Ps. The matter was referred to the Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. One Satyanarayana Rao filed a petition I A No 166 of 1980 for impleading himself as a party respondent. He claimed that he is the owner of the acquired property and that the award was passed behind his back and he put forward a claim before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming the entire compensation and therefore, he is a person interested in the acquired property and he is entitled to come on record. The said petition was allowed. Against which the present C R P is filed by the other claimants.

(3.) It is contended by Mr J V Suryanarayana Rao the learned counsel for the claimants that since there was no order of reference as regards Satyanarayana Rao, he cannot be permitted to come on record. Any person, who wants to get a reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer should file a petition within 2 months for the date of the award. Since no such application is made by Satyanarayana Rao, he cannot be permitted to come on record under Order 1 Rule 10. As there is some conflict of decisions with regard to the question whether a person who is not a party to the award proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer can implead himself as a party respondent in the Civil Court the matter was referred to a Division Bench. But the facts of this case disclose that the said question does not arise.