AMRITSAR PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES Vs. AVTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common order, two Revision Petitions, bearing Civil Revision No. 2197 of 2005 Amritsar Pharmaceutical Laboratories v. Avtar Singh and others and Civil Revision No. 2324 of 2005 Amritsar Pharmaceutical Laboratories v. Kanwaljit Singh and others, are being disposed of as both arise from one and the same impugned order dated 22.2.2005 whereby, applications filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 for being impleaded as a party in the two references filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") pending in the Court of Shri Vivek Puri, Additional District Judge, Amritsar, have been dismissed.

(2.) WITHOUT going into any details, suffice it to say that some land, for expansion of Industrial Focal Point at Vallah and Khankot, Tehsil and District Amritsar, was acquired by the Government of Punjab at the instance and for the benefit of respondent-Small Scale Industry and Export Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation"). The compensation of the land, as assessed by the Collector has been paid to the land-owners/claimants- respondents, who being dis-satisfied with the same, filed their respective references under Section 18 of the Act. During the pendency of the said References, applicant-petitioners, to whom to plots have been given further by the Corporation for setting up industries, moved applications under Order 1 Rule 10 for being impleaded as party to the References. Their applications were contested by the respondents on the ground that they were not the parties to the land acquisition proceedings and as such, they cannot be termed as interested party in the References moved under Section 18 of the Act by the land-owners for enhancement of the compensation.

(3.) THE only contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the petitioners being the allottees of plots have every right to be impleaded as party in the aforesaid References pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar inasmuch as it is they, who will have to ultimately pay the enhanced amount of compensation, if any, awarded by the Court, as per terms and conditions of allotment letter, given by the Corporation. In support of his this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon Udmi and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2002(2) RCR(Civil) 764; Union of India v. Sher Singh and others, 1993(3) RRR 224 : 1993(1) RRR 630 : 1994(1) PLR 216; and Union of India v. Kartar Singh and others, 2000(2) RCR(Civil) 233 : 2000(3) PLR 23.