SAHIB RAM Vs. HARYANA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been directed by the petitioner against the order of the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, dated 9.11.1990 refusing him to implead as a party in a reference under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called as the 'Act'). The petitioner claims to be an interested party in the reference on the ground that the original owner has executed an agreement of sale in his favour on 6.11.1989. The application has been declined on the ground that the scope of reference made by the Land Acquisition Court cannot be widened by the Land Acquisition Court by impleading the petitioner as a party. It has further been observed in the impugned order that the agreement of sale does not confer any title or interest in the acquired land till the agreement is specifically enforced and a decree is obtained by the petitioner. Mr. S.C. Nagpal, counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner being a prospective vendee is entitled to be impleaded as a party. In the alternative, it has been argued that the petitioner's application should have been kept pending and could have been decided at the time of deciding the reference as was done in the case of Mr. Brahma Nand, who filed an application for being impleaded as a party. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been given a discriminatory treatment in the sense that his application has been disposed of, whereas the application of Mr. Brahma Nand had been kept pending.

(2.) Mr. S. K. Mittal, Advocate, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner for being impleaded as a party, has vehemently argued that the acquisition took place on 15.12.1988 and any agreement of sale, even if, the same has been executed by a co-sharer, would not confer any right upon the petitioner to be impleaded as a party. It has further been argued that the case of Brahma Nand was altogether different because an agreement of sale was executed by the original owner in his favour on 17.5.1988 i.e. before issuing the notification under Section 4 of the Act.

(3.) I have given thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of the counsel for the parties and this Court is of the view that there is no merit in this revision petition. The Land Acquisition Court could not widen the scope of controversy by impleading a person as a party on the basis of an agreement of sale particularly when the agreement of sale has been executed after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The pendency of the application of Mr. Brahma Nand can be of no assistance to the petition because he has not been allowed to become a party. Moreover, the case of Mr. Brahma Nand is apparently on different facts as an agreement of sale was allegedly executed in his favour before issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act.