VIRENDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 5.7.2013 of Additional District Judge, Sonepat whereby application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleadment of respondent No. 11 to 14, herein in the reference petition of the petitioner herein under Section 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was allowed, is under challenge in this revision petition. The contesting applicant-respondents claim that on acquisition of their land, they did not receive adequate compensation of their land and were to be paid more compensation. Despite resistance offered by the petitioners herein that applicants were free to prefer their own reference for enhancement of compensation and that they had no stakes in his petition, their prayer was allowed vide the impugned order.

(2.) Claim of the petitioner is that in his petition under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act, the contesting applicants-respondents have no role to play and if any right accrues to them, they have an independent right to claim more compensation as claimed by them and they should pursue their independent remedy. None appeared for the contesting respondents to contest claim of the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent-State, however, has urged that there is no bar for the contesting respondents to set up their independent claim by way of preferring their separate reference petition under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act.

(3.) Hearing has been provided to the counsel for the parties.