S.J.V.N.LTD. Vs. DOLMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the abovementioned application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. filed by Smt. Bhakti Devi for being impleaded as a respondent in the appeal filed by Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. (S.J.V.N. Ltd.)

(2.) The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present application are that Kaul Ram and Smt. Dolma wife of Kaul Ram had filed a petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereafter to be referred as the Act), before the Land Acquisition Collector, Nathpa Jhakri, seeking a reference the District Judge for determination of the market value of the acquired land covered by Award No. 10/1991 dated 27.2.1991 given by the Land Acquisition Collector. On receipt of the said petition, the Land Acquisition Collector made a reference to the District Judge, Shimla under Section 18 of the Act, alleging therein that Kaul Ram and Smt. Dolma had not accepted the award given by him and had filed the petition for determination of the market value of the acquired land as such, he was making the said reference to the District Judge, Shimla. On receipt of the said reference, the learned District Judge ordered the registration of the same and also ordered issuance of notice to both the parties. The reference was contested by the other side and reply was filed. Various issues were framed. In the meanwhile, the reference concerning Kaul Ram and Smt. Dolma was ordered to be consolidated with the main case Ram Lai Sharma Vs. H.P. S.E.B.. During the course of the proceedings, an application under Order 22 Rule 3 C.P.C. was filed by Smt. Dolma before the learned District Judge to the effect that petitioner No.1 Kaul Ram had expired on 26.10.1995 leaving behind her (Smt. Dolma) as his legally wedded wife and Kumari Babli (minor) as his minor daughter through her mother and natural guardian Smt. Dolma and it was prayed that the legal heirs of petitioner No.1 Kaul Ram, since deceased, may be brought on the record. After hearing both the sides, the learned District Judge allowed the said application vide order dated 8.8.1996 and ordered the legal representatives of Kaul Ram to be brought on the record. The amended Memo of Parties filed alongwith the application was taken on record. This order was passed by the learned District Judge after noticing that the respondents before him had no objection to the same Thereafter, the learned District judge passed the award dated 9.1.2004 and enhanced the market value of the acquired land. Aggrieved against this award dated 9.1.2004 passed by the learned District judge, the S.J.V.N. Ltd. and the land Acquisition Collector filed the main appeal in this Court, bearing RFA No. 188 of 2004, impleading Smt. Dolma and Kumari Babli as respondents No. 1 & 2.

(3.) During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, the present application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was filed by the applicant Smt. Bhakti Devi for being impleaded as a respondent in the aforementioned appeal. It was alleged in the application that the property which was the subject matter of the reference was owned by Kaul Ram, deceased and that Smt. Dolma and Kumari Babli had wrongly represented themselves as the legal heirs of Kaul Ram and had succeeded in obtaining the award dated 1.9.2004 from the District judge in their favour. It was further alleged that Smt. Dolma and Kumari Babli had filed a Civil Suit against applicant Bhakti Devi in the Court of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Rampur Bushahr, seeking declaration to the effect that Smt. Dolma was the widow and Kumari Babli was the daughter of Kaul Ram and that they were entitled to inherit the property and benefits left by Kaul Ram. It was alleged that the said suit filed by Smt. Dolma and Kumari Babli was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge on 30.6.1999. It was further alleged that in the said suit the claim of Smt. Dolma and Kumari Babli that they were the heirs of Kaul Ram, deceased, being his widow and daughter, was not accepted by the Sub Judge. It was further alleged that the said judgment dated 30.6.1999 had attained finality. It was further alleged that in view of the findings of the Civil Court, as contained in the judgment dated 30.6.1999, Smt. Dolma and Kumari Babli were not entitled to any compensation in the aforesaid reference and in the present appeal, whereas applicant Smt. Bhakti Devi was entitled to the compensation in the said reference as well as in the present appeal, admittedly being the daughter of Kaul Ram, deceased. It was further alleged that in order to effectively decide the present appeal, the presence of the applicant was necessary and as such, it was a fit case where the applicant may be impleaded as a respondent in the main appeal since it will not cause any prejudice to any party. Smt. Bhakti Devi, applicant filed her own affidavit in support of the said application.