MOTI SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAINLY , two prayers have been made in this writ petition viz, (i) a writ of mandamus or prohibition or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof be issued directing the Additional District Judge, Deeg to dispose of the application of the petitioner moved before him for being impleaded as a party to the Reference made under Section 30 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short, 'the Act'): (ii) a direction may be issued to the Additional District Judge, Deeg, that the petitioner is entitled to recover the compensation for the land compulsorily acquired by the State Government and till the application is disposed of the amount of compensation lying with the court should not be paid to any body.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that so far as the land in dispute is concerned, an Award was made by the Land Acquisition Officer under which the land was acquired. No application under section 18 of the Act was made for making a reference to the court before Land Acquisition Officer but, an application under Section 30 of the Act was made to the Land Acqusition Officer requesting him to make a reference to decide the question of apportionment of the amount of compensation in between those who are allottees or entitled to it, and the application was contested by others but not by the petitioner. The Land Acquisition Officer, ultimately made a Reference under Section 30 of the Act on December 31, 1986.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the present petitioner, he was a person in cultivation and possession of the land in dispute; though, what was the status of the petitioner whether, a sub -tenant or transferee, or in what capacity is not known. His contention is that because, he is a person who being in cultivatory possession had spent a huge amount in developing the land in dispute making it fit for cultivation, and in other development activities, such as levelling etc., so he is a person interested and entitled to receive compensation on account of acquisition of the land in dispute. According to the petitioner, he did not receive any notice what so ever of the acquisition proceedings, nor had any knowledge about it, he moved application for being impleaded as a party to the Reference, which is yet pending before the Additional District Judge, Deeg which fact had not been brought by the parties to the notice of this Court while deciding the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 300/1987 on July 6, 1987. According to the petitioner, his application should have been disposed of and unless and until his application is decided by the Additional District Judge, Deeg, no order could be passed with regard to the payment of compensation to anybody, and if the amount of 50% compensation is allowed to be paid to Chhatar Bhan Singh and others (petitioners in writ petition No. 300/1987), the rights of the petitioner are likely to be affected and jeopardised.