MURTI SHRI RAM CHANDER JI MAHARAJ, INSTALLED IN THAKARDWARA KALAN, TALAB NAURANG RAI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Some land belonging to Thakurdwara Kalan Talab Naurang Rai, Ambala city, was acquired by the State of Haryana. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector, Mahant Ram Narain Dass, respondent No. 2 got a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). When the reference was at the stage of evidence in the Court of Additional District Judge, Ambala, the Trust Thakurdwara Kalan through its Vice-President Hit Abileshi, moved an application under Order 1, rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, for being impleaded as a party praying that it was the First which only was entitled to manage the affairs of the Thakurdwara and also entitled to the compensation. The application was opposed by respondent No. 2 and the Additional District Judge, relying on a decision of this Court in Niranjan Singh and others v. Amar Singh, 1984 AIR(P&H) 250, dismissed the same. Hence this revision petition by the Trust.

(2.) At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner Trust urged that as there is an apparent conflict between the two Single-Bench decisions of this Court in Bagh Singh and others v. The Special Land Acquisition Collector, 1984 86 PunLR 568and Niranjan Singh's case the case be referred to a larger Bench.

(3.) No doubt, the observations made in Mt. Sakalbaso keur v. Brijender Singh, 1967 AIR(Pat) 243, on the question whether a person, who never claimed any reference under section 30 of the Act, could be impleaded or not by the Court were disapproved, but the learned Judge never held that the provisions of Order 1, rule 10 CPC, were not applicable for that, under no circumstances, any person could be impleaded as a party to the reference by invoking the said powers. In Bagh Singh's case , a reference had been got made under section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation by one of the co-sharers. Another co-sharer moved an application under Order, 1, rule 10 CPC, for being impleaded as a party to the reference, which was held competent by I.S. Tiwana, J, and the order of the trial Court declining the prayer, was reversed. The reasoning on which the application by the stranger was declined in Niranjan Singh's case obviously had no applicability on the facts of Bagh Singh's case , as in the latter case the scope or nature of the reference was not going to be enlarged or changed in any manner by impleading another co-sharer as a party to the reference. Thus, there being no conflict in the two decisions on any question of the law, the prayer for a reference to a larger Bench has to be declined.