NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a person, who had not filed any claim in response to a notice issued under Section g of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act' for short) and had pot participated in the enquiry held by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Collector') under Section 11 ot the Act and had not raised any dispute for the apportionment of compensation before the Collector, can be impleaded as a party to the proceedings pending before the Court on a reference made by the Collector under Section 30 of the AM against the wishes of the person on whose application reference has been made, is the short but meaningful question raised in.his revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil P. C.

(2.) A brief survey of the pertinent facts will help illumine the contours of forensic controversy: Amar Singh, respondent No. 1, 'to this. revision petition, moved an application raising a dispute regarding the title of the lend, in dispute, measuring 20 Kanals, situated in village Abheypur and apportionment of its compensation determined by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act. In exercise of the powers conferred "n him under S. 30 of the Act, the Collector referred the dispute between Amar Singh and the Gram Panchayat over the apportionment ot the compensation to the Court for decision. The matter was entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge. Ambala, for disposal. The petitioners made an application under O. l, R. 10 of the Civil p. C., t., 'the Court for being impleaded/added either as applicants or respondents to the reference under Section 30 of the Act. Amar Singh oppose. this application. The learned Additional District Judge held that the statement under Section 19 "the Act placed of the record indicated that Amar Singh had interest in the land and prima fact, shamilat deh of a village vests in the Gram Panchayat ; ot that village under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, The Gram Panchayat was already a party to the proceedings. The applicants were not parties before the Collector. Relying on two decisions in Basalingappa Gowda v. Nagamma, AIR 1969 Mys 313 and Municipality, Nalgonda v. Hakeem Muhiuddin, AIR 1964 Andh Pra 305 he also held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to implead a person, to a reference, who was not a party before the Collector. He dismissed the application filed by the petitioners. They have now come up in the revision to this Court.

(3.) The answer to the question raised falls to be decided on a conspectus of the relevant provision of the Act. Under Section 9 of the Act the Collector is required to cause a public notice of the intention of the Government to take possession of land and inviting the persons interested to file,their claims and appear before the Collector personally or by an agent at the time and place mentioned therein and to state their respective interest in the land and the particulars of their claims to compensation. Under Section 11 of the Act, the Collector is enjoined to, make an enquiry and make an award regarding the area of the land; the compensation for the land and apportionment of compensation among the persons know or believed to be interested in the land of whose claims he had information whether or not they have appeared before him. Such an award, under Section 12 of the Act, shall be filed in the office of the Collector and shall be final.and conclusive evidence as between the Collector and the persons interested. Part IV of the Act prescribes the procedure for 'apportionment of. compensation'. Section 30 of the Act heads as under: