UDMI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order dated 12.12.1990 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon allowing the application of the respondent -State wherein a prayer was made for impleadment of respondent No.2 i.e. M/s I.B.P. Company Limited 149, Sector 17, Urban Estate, Gurgaon, The order impugned in this petition reads as under:

(2.) Shri Hemant Bassi, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed this order on the ground that the application filed by respondent No. 2 alone could have enabled the Court to allow his impleadment and the application at the instance of respondent No. 1 was not maintainable. His other submission is that notice of the application should have been issued to him because under Sec. 20 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity the Act), notices are required to be issued for determination of an objection with regard to proceedings under Sec. 18 only to person interested. The land is acquired by the State and none else could be person interested except the acquiring authority. According to the learned counsel, respondent No.2 under sub Sec. 2 of Sec. 50 of the Act was entitled only to assist respondent No. 1 and at best could have adduced evidence.

(3.) Shri J.P. Dhull, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the State of Haryana and Shri Sanjay Majithia, Advocate for respondent no.2, have submitted that the controversy with regard to person interested or as to whether the company, corporation, society or any person for whose benefit the land is being acquired is a necessary party has been settled by a catena of judgments. For this proposition, learned counsel placed reliance on various judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Neelaganga Bai v/s. State of Karntaka, I : (1990)3 S.C.C. 617 : Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v/s. Ashok Singhal, 1991 Suppl.(2) S.C.C. 419: Union of India v/s. Sher Singh, (1994)106 P.L.R. 216 (S.C.) and Bihar State Electricity Board v/s. State of Bihar,, 1994 Suppl. (3) S.C.C. 743 and it argued that private corporation, company, society or other registered body or persons for whose benefit the land is acquired are held to be persons interested within the meaning of Ss. 3(b), 18 and 20 of the Act and, therefore, the order dated 12.12.1990 allowing the impleadment of respondent no. 2 does not suffer from any material irregularity or illegality. They also submitted that there is no error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order by the learned Addl. District Judge. With regard to the other contention that notice of the application was not issued to the petitioner, the learned counsel submitted that under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code, the Court is competent to implead any of the persons who are necessary/proper party even without an application and there is no bar that only a party interested should file an application only to confer jurisdiction on the trial Court to allow the impleadment.