PROMOTHA NATH MITRA Vs. RAKHAL DAS ADDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order made under Order I, Rule 10, Clause (8), of the Civil P. C., read with Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, by which the name of the petitioner was directed to be struck out on the ground that he had been improperly joined as a party to a Land Acquisition proceeding pending in the Court below.

(2.) It appears that on the 26 May 1906, the usual declaration was made under the Act for the acquisition of the disputed properly. Notices under Secs.9 and 10 were served on the 1 September following. In the proceedings before the Collector, the parties at the beginning were the petitioner Manmatha Nath Mitter and the opposite party Rakhal Das Addy. On the 23 September 1908, the estate which comprises the disputed property, was sold for arrears of revenue and was purchased by the petitioner Promotbo Nath Mitter. On the 17th. October 1903, Promotho Nath applied to the Collector to stay proceedings till the confirmation of the revenue sale. Two days later, this application was rejected, and on the 30 October 1908, the Collector made his award, by which the whole compensation money was given to Rakhal Das, who had set up a lakheraj title to the property. On the 10 November 1908, possession of the acquired property was taken by Government under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, and from that date the title vested in Government. On the 18 November, Manmatha Nath applied to the Collector to make a reference to the Civil Courts both on the ground that the property had been under-valued arid the compensaticm had baen erroneously awarded to the alleged lakhsrajdar. On the 7 December 1908, Rakhal Das made a similar application on the sole ground that the property had been under-valued. On the 6 January 1909, Manmatha Nath withdrew his objection to the valuation of the property, and on the 21 January foil wing, the Collector made a reference to the Civil Court. "Meanwhile, on the 11 January 1909, the revenue sale had been confirmed under Section 21 of Act XI of 1859, whereupon the title vested in the purchaser Promotho Nath with effect from the date of default, that is, the 29 June 1908. Promotho Nath had not applied to the Collector to make any reference, but on the 23 March 190 while the reference made at the instance of Manmatha Nath was pending before the Special Judge, he was added as a party to the proceeding upon his application. This order apparently was made ex parte. Subsequently, on the 7 August, Rakhal Das applied to the Court for a re-consideration of the order in question, and on the 19 August, the Special Judge recorded the fallowing order: I do not think that my predecessor ought to have added Promotho Nath Mitter as a party, unless all the parties have given their consent; nor do I think that be would have done so had he heard the pleaders for the parties other than Kumar Manmatha Nath Mitter and Roy Promotho Nath Mitter. As, however, the name of Roy Promotha Nath Mitter has been added, I shall allow it to remain. But as his name is not mentioned in the reference made to this Court by the Special Land Acquisition Collector, I shall neither frame nor decide any issue between him and any party to the proceedings that would not have arisen had his name not been added as a party, and any money that may be found due to Kumar Manmatha Nath Mitter will be paid to him and Roy Promotho Nath Mitter jointly as contemplated by my predecessor, unless, of course, all the parties interested agree to compromise the matter.

(3.) Later on, on the 29 September, apparently without any application by the parties, the Land Acquisition Judge decided to review his previous order, and on the 6 October 1909, decided that Promotho Nath ought not to remain a party to the proceeding. No reasons were assigned in the order in support of the action thus taken; and the sole question in controversy between the parties in this Rule is, whether that order ought to be maintained.