INDRAJ Vs. SHAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the Court to whom a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been made by the Land Acquisition Collector for apportionment of compensation can add a person as a party who has not asked for a reference from the Collector is the question referred to us for determination.

(2.) The reference was necessitated because the learned single Judge found that there was a conflict between single Bench decisions of this Court reported as Beer Singh v. Union of India, 1988 (2) LLR 413, on the one hand, and Murti Shree Ram Chander Ji Maharaj v. State of Haryana, 1987 PLJ 131 and Bagh Singh v. The Special Land Acquisition Collector, District Courts, Jalandhar, 1984 (1) LLR 59 : 1984 PLR 568.

(3.) Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity) provides an alternative remedy for the Land Acquisition Collector for apportionment of compensation amount settled under S. 11 of the Act in complicated cases. He may himself decide the question of apportionment and complete his award as required by S. 11 leaving it to the parties to bring a reference under S. 18 in case they feel dissatisfied with his award. If they accept the award, he would no doubt record the same as contemplated in S. 29, but if he experience any difficulty on the question of apportionment of compensation, he might act under S. 31 although he is not compelled to do so. A reference under S. 30 is in the nature of an interpleader suit. The proceeding is a combination of as many suits as there are claimants and each claimant is both plaintiff and defendant. The proper procedure in such case is the procedure which has been invariably followed by the Court as to call upon each claimant to file a statement of his claim - this statement would be his plaint. In answer to the claim thus made, the defendants, namely, the contesting claimants, would file statements - these would be their written statements. Then issue would be settled and the trial would proceed within the ordinary meaning. By virtue of S. 53 of the Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code) are made applicable to all proceedings before the Land Acquisition Court except where any provision of the Code would be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. The rule is that the provisions of the Code apply to all proceedings before the Court. Exception to this rule is made by the provisions of the Act, which may be so inconsistent with the provisions of the Code so as to make them inapplicable to the proceedings before the Court under this Act. The Court under the Act means the Court as defined in S. 3(d) ibid. The provisions of O. 1, R. 10(2) of the Code relate to the impleading of the parties which are either necessary parties or proper parties. The Act does not exclude the applicability of this provision to the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Court. It is in this context that the question has to be answered whether a person can be added as a party whose presence the Court feels necessary for the proper adjudication of the dispute referred to it. There is conflict amongst various High Courts, but the preponderance of judicial pronouncements is that the reference Court can add a person as a party if it is satisfied that the dispute will be effectually and finally adjudicated upon.