N SUNDARA CHARI Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, in I.A. No. 100 of 1984, rejecting the request of the 3rd party-petitioner to come on record as a party in the land acquisition proceedings pending before him in O.P. No. 9 of 1977.

(2.) The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass : The petitioner, who is a practising advocate in Chittoor, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. requesting the lower Court to implead him as a party to the proceedings pending in that Court stating that one Madiga Nagaiah, the 2nd respondent herein, was a benamidar for him for the land in question covered by the sale deeds Exs. B-1 and B-2, which were sought to be acquired by the Government and the matter has been referred to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. Later on, the matter went up to the High Court. This Court in A.S. No. 259 of 1981 dated 2-2-1984 doubted the identity of Madiga Nagaiah and also about his title and, therefore, remanded the matter to the lower Court. Originally the lands under reference were assigned to two persons belonging to Madiga Community with a condition that the lands should not be sold to persons belonging to community other than 'Madiga' community. The assignment and imposition of the condition were made by the then Tabsildar in 1930. The petitioner's case is that since there was a condition that the lands cannot be alienated to non-Madiga community persons he could not purchase the land in his name and in case of purchase the Government would have cancelled the alienation and resumed the land. So he purchased the land in the name of the 2nd respondent who belonged to Madiga community. He also asserted that benami transactions are not prohibited by any law in India and he felt that he is a necessary party to the proceedings as he is the real owner. The agreement of sales, the amount that has been paid prior to the execution of the sale deeds and the purchase of the stamps all show that be is the person that has purchased the lands. The petitioner also reserved his right to file a suit; if necessary.

(3.) The 2nd respondent resisted the plea of the petitioner on the ground that he is the real owner and the petitioner himself conducted the case in the capacity of General Power of Attorney for the 2nd respondent, and therefore, the petitioner has no right to come on record and he is the real owner of the property but not a benamidar.