GH AHMAD HAJJAM Vs. COLLECTOR NALLAMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the course of Acquisition proceedings conducted in the court of the Additional District Judge, Srinagar, (Collector under Naliamar), an application was moved on behalf of Mst. Khati Alias Mst. Hajra, Ghulam Qadir, Mohamad Ashvaf and Mst. Hajra resident of Naid Yar, Rainawari, Srinagar, seeking impleadment as parries to the proceedings. They averned that they had vital interest in the property acquired, and, therefore, they should be made parties to the proceedings. This application was resisted by the petitioners, herein, on the ground that the aforesaid persons seeking impleadment had no interest in the property and were not the persons interested in the proceedings. Moreover, they had not filed any objections before the Collector under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, and therefore, at this stage they cannot ask the court to make them parties to -the proceedings. The addl. District Judge after hearing the counsel for the parties, allowed the application and ordered the impleadment of the aforesaid persons as parties to the proceedings. This order was made on 5 -10 -1977. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed a review petition challenging the order of impleadment. The review petition was rejected on the ground that there was no error apparent on the face of the record. This order was made on 5 -7 -1978. Against both these orders of the Addl. District Judge, the petitioners have come up in revision before this court.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Langer appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the order of the Addl. District Judge is palpably wrong in view of the limitation imposed by Section 21 of the Land Acquisition Act. According to that Section the scope of the enquiry in the acquisition proceedings is to be restricted to a consideration of interests of the persons affected by the objections. The scope of the reference made by the Collector is to the effect as to what should be the fair compensation in the case. As the respondents did not appear before the Collector, and did not raise any objection, therefore, they have got no right to be heard in proceedings under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Addl. District Judge, Srinagar. Learned counsel has relied upon A. I. R. 1930 Privy Council, 64.

(3.) THIS argument is met by the other side by enunciating the view that there is no limitation on the power o! the court to make an order of impleadment under Order I rule 10 C. P. C. which applies to acquisition proceedings. If the court is of the opinion that the persons seeking impleadment are either necessary or proper parties in the case and the impleadment is necessary in order to decide effectively the points in controversy between the parties, then the order can be made. As the respondents have got a definite right in the property acquired, therefore, they could approach the court and seek impleadment as parties in the case.