DES RAJ Vs. MANSA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are the owners of land which was acquired under the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990, hereinafter the Act, by Collector, Kathua. They not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, applied to the Collector to make a reference to the District Judge, in terms of Section 18 of the Act. A reference was accordingly made wherein the only point agitated was whether or not the compensation awarded by the Collector was adequate? While this reference was pending before him, an application was made by one Mansa Ram, the respondent herein, that he too may be impleaded as a party to the proceedings, inasmuch as, he being a protected tenant qua the land acquired, was interested in the apportionment of compensation that might be eventually awarded. This application was resisted by the petitioners on the ground that the respondent not being a party to the reference, he could not be made a party to the proceedings pending before the Court. The District Judge rejected the petitioners plea and made the respondent a party, to the proceedings before him, as in his opinion, Section 18 was to be given a liberal interpretation. The petitioners feel aggrieved of this order; hence the revision petition.

(2.) Appearing for the petitioners. Mr. A. V. Gupta has argued that notwithstanding the fact that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, including those contained in Order 1, Rule 10, are applicable to proceedings before a Court under Section 18 of the Act, the District Judge had no jurisdiction to implead the respondent as a party to these proceedings, unless he was also a party to the reference, made to him by the Collector. I find considerable force in this contention. Section 51 of the Act, which makes the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to the proceedings, pending in the Courts under the Act, reads as under :-

(3.) In the result the revision petition succeeds, which is allowed accordingly, and the order passed by the District Judge impleading the respondent as a party, is set aside. The respondent, if otherwise entitled, may approach the Collector for a reference of his dispute to the Court.