PANCHI PASWAN Vs. PREMLAL KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Civil Revision applications are by the same set of petitioners. In Land Acquisition Case Nos. 10 and 12 of 1969, pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Madhipura, the petitioners applied under Order 1, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure to be added as parties as those lands belong to them and they were entitled to the compensation money. The learned Subordinate Judge has rejected their applications. They have, therefore, come up to this Court in revision.

(2.) Prima facie, the learned Subordinate Judge has held that the petitioners have no claim to the land or the compensation money. That apart. I think, they are not entitled to be added as parties to the land acquisition cases. They had not made their claims before the Collector. It may well be that no notice under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called the "Act", was served on them. Yet as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Dr. G. H. Grant v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 237, they could ask the Collector to make a reference under Section 30 of the Act. If they would have raised a dispute before the Collector earlier, they had a right to ask him to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act. But in these two references made at the instance of different persons, they cannot come and say that they are entitled to the compensation money as they are the owners of the land acquired and, therefore, they should be heard and the Civil Court awards should be made in their favour. They may have their right to pursue the matter in a properly constituted civil suit by claiming the money from the person who, according to them, has wrongly taken it, but that is a different matter. In support of the view I have expressed above, I may make reference to three decisions of the Calcutta High Court, namely, Mahananda Roy v. Srish Chandra Tewari, (1910) 7 Ind Cas 10 (Cal); Maniur Ahmed v. Rai Lakshmi Dasi, AIR 1956 Cal 263 and Smt. Indumati Debi v. Tulsi Tha-kurani, AIR 1942 Cal 53.

(3.) Mr. S. C. Ghose, learned counsel for the petitioners, urged that the petitioners were the persons whose interest would be affected by the decision in the land acquisition cases and, therefore under Section 21 of the Act, they ought to have been heard. In support of this point he placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunderlal v. Paramsukhdas, AIR 1968 SC 366. The facts of the Supreme Court decision are different and the ratio of the case is distinct. There a person claiming to be added who was not added by the Land Acquisition Court, but was added by the High Court in revision, was the attaching creditor of the compensation money. The question before the Supreme Court was whether a person who had no interest in the land, but was claiming interest in the compensation money only could be said to be a "person affected by the decision within the meaning of Section 21 of the Act. In agreement with the High Court, the Supreme Court held it to be so. Paramsukhdas was claiming to be the attaching creditor of Sunderlal in that case. Here the petitioners are claiming in their own right to be the owners of the land and, therefore, entitled to the compensation money. Their remedy was to approach the Collector, and not come directly to the Land Acquisition Court for being added as parties in the reference cases instituted at the instance of other parties. As I have said above, they may have a right to go to the Civil Court, but that apart I am definitely of the opinion that for the reasons given by the learned Subordinate Judge as also for the additional ones given by me, the impugned order cannot be interfered with.