BABULAL MEHTAR Vs. FAKIRA MEHTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The moot question raised in this revision is whether Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil P.C. (for brevity as the Code) is applicable in a case under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The facts of the case virtually are not in dispute. The land of plot No. 134 of village Tisiauta, P.S. Patepur in the district of Vaishali has been acquired for the purpose of excavation of canal in the village by the State of Bihar. The award for payment of compensation was prepared in the name of opposite party No. 1 Fakira Mehtar. Since he made an objection to the amount of compensation awarded, the learned Collector under Section 18 of the Act made a reference for decision to the Land Acquisition Judge. The petitioners filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code for intervening in the aforesaid reference proceeding before the Land Acquisition Judge on the plea that the petitioners are the co-sharers of the joint family properties which have been acquired by the State of Bihar. The learned Judge by his order dated 22-5-1979 rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the plea that the provisions with regard to the addition of parties are not applicable in a reference proceedings under the Act and as such the Court was not competent to add the petitioners as party to the proceeding. The aforesaid order is under challenge in this application.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Braj Kishore Narain has submitted that the petitioners are the co-sharers and are the persons interested in the land which has been acquired. The petitioners being co-sharers claimed share in the compensation money. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that it was an error on the part of the court below to hold that Order 1, Rule 10 is not applicable under the Act.