Karnataka High Court
Suvarna vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 December, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
R
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 200812 OF 2024 (LA-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 201485 OF 2024(GM-CPC)
WRIT PETITION NO. 201486 OF 2024(GM-CPC)
IN W.P.NO.200812 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
CHANDRASHEKHAR
S/O MANIKRAO
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
RESIDENT OF HUCHAKANALLI VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST: BIDAR-585401
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI B. PATIL., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARANJA PROJECT,
D.C. OFFICE
BIDAR 585401
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KNNL KPC DIVISION 1
BIDAR 585401
3. SRI. RAMESH
S/O LATE VEERSANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O BHARTAMBRA VILLAGE
TQ BHALKI, DIST BIDAR-585401.
4. SRI. RAJASHEKHAR
S/O LATE VEERSANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDENT OF BHATAMBRA VILLAGE
TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR
5. SMT. SARASWATI
D/O LATE SHAMRAO
W/O MANSHETTY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD.
RESIDENT OF SHIKAR MOTHAKPALLI VILLAGE
TQ .CHINCHOLI
DIST KALABURAGI-585104.
... RESPONDENTS
(V/O/DATED 20.3.2024
BY SMT. MAYA T.R., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SANJEEV KUMAR C. PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL.,
ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.02.2024 PASSED ON
I.A.NO.2 IN LAC NO.107/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIDAR AS AT ANNEXURE-H, AS
ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO THE SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW AND
ETC.
IN W.P.NO.201485 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SUVARNA
D/O SANGRAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O HUCHAKANALLI VILLAGE
TQ AND DIST BIDAR-585401
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI B. PATIL., ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARANJA PROJECT, D.C. OFFICE
BIDAR 585401
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KNNL KPC DIVISION 1, BIDAR 585401
3. SRI. RAMESH
S/O LATE VEERSANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O BHARTAMBRA VILLAGE
TQ BHALKI, DIST BIDAR-585401.
4. SRI. RAJASHEKHAR
S/O LATE VEERSANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDENT OF BHATAMBRA VILLAGE
TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR-585401
5. SMT. SARASWATI
D/O LATE SHAMRAO
W/O MANSHETTY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD.
RESIDENT OF SHIKAR MOTHAKPALLI VILLAGE
TQ .CHINCHOLI, DIST KALABURAGI-585307.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL.,
ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.05.2024 PASSED ON I.A.
UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN LAC
NO.61/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIDAR AS AT ANNEXURE-F, AS ILLEGAL AND
CONTRARY TO THE SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.201486 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
SMT. KAVITA
W/O CHANDRASHEKHAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE
R/O HUCHAKANALLI VILLAGE
TQ AND DIST BIDAR
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI B. PATIL., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARANJA PROJECT, D.C. OFFICE
BIDAR 585401
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KNNL KPC DIVISION 1, BIDAR 585401
3. SRI. RAMESH
S/O LATE VEERSANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O BHARTAMBRA VILLAGE
TQ BHALKI, DIST BIDAR-585401.
4. SRI. RAJASHEKHAR
S/O LATE VEERSANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDENT OF BHATAMBRA VILLAGE
TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR-585401
5. SMT. SARASWATI
D/O LATE SHAMRAO
W/O MANSHETTY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD.
RESIDENT OF SHIKAR MOTHAKPALLI VILLAGE
TQ .CHINCHOLI, DIST KALABURAGI-585307.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T.R., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL.,
ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5;
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
R2-SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.05.2024 PASSED ON I.A.
UNDER ORDER I RULE 10 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN LAC
NO.60/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIDAR AS AT ANNEXURE-G, AS ILLEGAL AND
CONTRARY TO THE SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.11.2024, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
Table of Contents
A. Background ............................................................................................. 6
B. Submissions of Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner ............................................. 12
C. Submissions of Ld. Counsels for Respondent Nos. 1-5 (R15) ......................... 26
D. Points for Consideration........................................................................... 29
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
A. Background
1. The Petitioner in W.P. No. 200812/2024 is before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned Order
dated 06.02.2024 passed on I.A. No.2 in LAC No.
107/2018 pending on the file of Additional District
and Sessions Judge at Bidar as at Annexure-H, as
illegal and contrary to the settled proposition of law.
ii. Pass any Order or orders which may be deemed fit by
this Hon'ble Court in the circumstances of the case.
2. The Petitioner in W.P. No. 201485/2024 is before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned Order
dated 27.05.2024 passed on I.A. under Order I Rule 10
of Code of Civil Procedure in LAC No. 61/2022 pending
on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge at
Bidar as at Annexure-G, as illegal and contrary to the
settled proposition of law.
b. Pass any Order or orders which may be deemed fit by
this Hon'ble Court in the circumstances of the case.
3. The Petitioner in W.P. No. 201486/2024 is before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned Order
dated 27.05.2024 passed on I.A. under Order I Rule 10
of Code of Civil Procedure in LAC No. 60/2022 pending
on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge at
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
Bidar as at Annexure-F, as illegal and contrary to the
settled proposition of law.
b. Pass any Order or orders which may be deemed fit by
this Hon'ble Court in the circumstances of the case.
Facts in W.P. No.200812/2024
4. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the land
in Sy.No.121/2, measuring 29 Guntas, situated at
Huchakanalli Village, Taluk and District Bidar, which was
proposed to be acquired vide a notification issued under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on
7.6.2011, for a project known as Karanja. A final
notification under Section 6(1) came to be issued on
9.11.2012. In both the notifications, the name of the
petitioner has been shown as the owner of the aforesaid
land. The Special Land Acquisition Officer - Respondent
No.1, passed an award of compensation assessing the
value to be Rs.4,64,166/- on 16.11.2014. By then, the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
having come into force, the Petitioner filed a reference
application under Subsection (1) of Section 64 of the Act
of 2013. Based on which, the SLAO prepared a checklist
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
and reference was made to the District and Sessions
Judge, Bidar which came to be numbered as LAC
No.107/2018.
5. In the said proceedings, Respondents No.3 to 5, claiming
to be interested persons, interested in the award of
compensation, claiming that they had ownership interest
in the property, there being no partition among the
brothers of the father of the Petitioner, the property being
ancestral in nature, had filed an application under Order
1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which
application was opposed by the Petitioner. The Reference
Court, however, allowed the application vide order dated
6.2.2024. Despite the Petitioner and the Respondents
having contended that the dispute between them has
been settled, the Court came to a conclusion that such
settlement cannot deprive Respondents No.3 to 5 or the
Court from granting compensation. Any compensation
amount awarded could be received, distributed or divided
between the parties, and being of the opinion that it
would result in multiplicity of proceedings, memo of
settlement was rejected; impleading application was
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
allowed, and the plaintiff was directed to carryout
amendment and file amended petition.
Facts in W.P. No.201485/2024
6. The petitioner claims to be absolute owner of land in
Sy.No.9/1B, measuring 3 acres situated at Huchakanalli
Village, Bidar Taluk and District. The said land also was
acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and an
award came to be passed on 6.1.2022, after the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into
force under Section 23 and 31 of the Act of 2013. The
name of the petitioner was found in the preliminary
notification, final notification, as also the award. The
Petitioner, not satisfied with the compensation awarded,
had sought for determination of the market value of the
property in terms of Section 64 of the Act of 2013, which
came to be referred to the Additional District Judge at
Bidar, and the proceedings were numbered as LAC
No.61/2022.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
7. Respondents No.3 to 5, claiming to be interested persons
in the award of compensation; claiming that there is no
partition among the brothers of the father of the
petitioner and respondents No.3 to 5, the property being
ancestral property, had sought to implead themselves by
filing an application under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the
Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner objected to the
said application.
8. The Reference Court vide its order dated 27.5.2024
observing that both the counsel for the Petitioner and the
counsel for the impleading applicants were absent,
coming to a conclusion that in the impleading application,
it was mentioned that the impleading applicant is an
owner of the property, the Court being of the opinion that
no loss, inconvenience or hardship will be caused to the
Petitioner if the application is allowed, as both parties will
have opportunity to adduce evidence, allowed the
application and directed the petitioner to carry out
amendment and file amended petition.
Facts in W.P. No.201486/2024
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
9. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the land
in Sy.No.8/2 measuring 1 acre, situated at Huchakanalli
Village, Bidar Taluk and District. The said land also was
acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and an
award came to be passed on 6.1.2022, after the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into
force under Section 23 and 31 of the Act of 2013. The
name of the petitioner was found in the preliminary
notification, final notification, as also the award. The
Petitioner, not satisfied with the compensation awarded,
had sought for determination of the market value of the
property in terms of Section 64 of the Act of 2013, which
came to be referred to the Additional District Judge at
Bidar, and the proceedings were numbered as LAC
No.60/2022.
10. Respondents No.3 to 5, claiming to be interested persons
in the award of compensation; claiming that there is no
partition among the brothers of the father of the
petitioner and respondents No.3 to 5, the property being
ancestral property, had sought to implead themselves by
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
filing an application under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the
Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner objected to the
said application.
11. The Reference Court vide its order dated 27.5.2024
observing that both the counsel for the Petitioner and the
counsel for the impleading applicants were absent,
coming to a conclusion that in the impleading application,
it was mentioned that the impleading applicant is an
owner of the property, the Court being of the opinion that
no loss, inconvenience or hardship will be caused to the
Petitioner if the application is allowed, as both parties will
have opportunity to adduce evidence, allowed the
application and directed the petitioner to carry out
amendment and file amended petition.
B. Submissions of learned Counsel for the
Petitioners in all the above three matters:
12. Shri. Ravi B. Patil, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the Petitioners in all the above matters
would submit that:
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
12.1. Upon seeking reference against the award
dated 16.11.2014, the said award stood
withdrawn. Thereafter firstly, he submits that
the LA Act is a complete code by itself providing
remedies for not only parties whose lands are
subject matter of acquisition but also for any
third-party claims relating to the award of
compensation amount or any apportionment of
the same.
12.2. Secondly, the reference court derives
jurisdiction from an order of reference made
and is bound to only determine the adequacy of
the amount of compensation awarded and it is
not within its jurisdiction to entertain any
applications that are 'Pro-Interesse Suo'.
12.3. In this regard he places reliance on a decision
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shyamali Das vs
Illa Chowdhry and Ors.1, more particularly
1
2006 INSC 781
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
para no. 19 thereof, which has been reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
19. The Act is a complete code by itself. It provides
for remedies not only to those whose lands have
been acquired but also to those who claim the
awarded amount or any apportionment thereof. A
Land Acquisition Judge derives its jurisdiction from
the order of reference. It is bound thereby. His
jurisdiction is to determine adequacy or otherwise
of the amount of compensation paid under the
award made by the Collector. It is not within his
domain to entertain any application of pro interesse
suo or in the nature thereof.
12.4. By relying on Shyamali Das's case, his
submission is that the Respondent Nos. 3-5
herein are bound by the provisions of the LA
Act and an impleading application without
preferring a reference would not be
maintainable.
12.5. The learned Counsel further submits that an
impleading applicant cannot stretch the scope
of enquiry under section 18 and section 30 of
the LA Act, his contention is that a person
claiming to have an interest in the
compensation amount but not a party to
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
proceedings before the collector, cannot be
made a party to an apportionment adjudication
under section 18 or 30 of the LA Act. Hence,
Respondent Nos. 3-5 seeking to be impleaded
under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC much after a
reference was made by the Reference Court are
not entitled to come on record at such a belated
stage.
12.6. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the Prayag Upnivesh Awas Evam
Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. vs Allahabad
Vikas Pradhikaram2, more particularly para
no. 7 thereof, which has been reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
7. It is well established that the Reference Court
gets jurisdiction only if the matter is referred to it
under Section 18 or 30 of the Act by the Land
Acquisition Officer and that the civil court has got
the jurisdiction and authority only to decide the
objections referred to it. The Reference Court
cannot widen the scope of its jurisdiction or decide
matters which are not referred to it. This question
2
(2003) 5 SCC 561
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
was considered by various judicial authorities and
one of the earliest decisions reported on this point
is Pramatha Nath Mullick Bahadur v. Secy. of
State [AIR 1930 PC 64 : ILR 57 Cal 1148] . This
was a case where the claimant sought a reference
under Section 18 of the Act. In the application filed
by the claimant, he raised objection only regarding
the valuation of the land. The claimant did not
dispute the measurements of the land given in the
award. Before the Reference Court, the claimant
raised objection regarding the measurements of
the land and sought for fresh measurements. This
was refused and the claimant applied to the High
Court for revision of this order, but without
success. Again, in the appeal, the claimant raised
the same objection regarding measurements and
the High Court rejected it. The Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council held thus: (AIR p. 65)
"Their Lordships have no doubt that the
jurisdiction of the courts under this Act is a special
one and is strictly limited by the terms of these
sections. It only arises when a specific objection
has been taken to the Collector's award, and it is
confined to a consideration of that objection. Once
therefore it is ascertained that the only objection
taken is to the amount of compensation, that
alone is the 'matter' referred, and the court has no
power to determine or consider anything beyond
it."
12.7. By relying on Upnivesh Agarwal's case he
submits that the scope of adjudication by a
reference Court is plainly limited to decide on
the objection raised to the Collector's award
and in this case the Petitioner having sought for
a reference adjudication to enhance the
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
quantum/amount of compensation, there exists
no scope to entertain a plea for impleadment
and only the objection to the compensation
awarded can be entertained. Hence the
Reference Court has decided outside of its
jurisdiction in allowing the impleading
application.
12.8. He places reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Ram Prakash Agarwal vs Gopi
Krishnan and Ors.3, more particularly para
no. 27 thereof which has been reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
27. It is evident from the above, that a person
who has not made an application before the Land
Acquisition Collector, for making a reference under
Section 18 or 30 of the 1894 Act, cannot get
himself impleaded directly before the Reference
Court.
12.9. By relying on Ram Prakash Agarwal's case,
he submits that an impleading application
3
(2013) 11 SCC 296
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
without having applied for reference under
sections 18 and 30 would not be maintainable,
the Respondents 3-5 not having sought for a
reference under the relevant provisions holds
no locus before the Reference Court.
12.10. He relies upon a decision of this Court in
Chikkasubbanna & Ors. vs Special Land
Acquisition Officer & Ors.4, more particularly
para nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 thereof, which have
been reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
4.The question that needs to be examined is that as
to whether respondent No.2 is entitled to be heard
in the pending proceedings before LAC No.13/2012,
LAC No.19/2012 and LAC No.20/2012. Except filing
impleading application, respondent No.2 has not
produced any documents to indicate as to how she
is interested in the properties. All that is stated in
the affidavit is that she is half share along with
respondent No.3 - K.Govardhan and therefore, she
would contend that the compromise recorded in
O.S. No. 151/2002 would not bind her legitimate
share. Now, if these averments are examined
having regard to the scope of enquiry under Section
30 of the Land Acquisition Act, I am of the view that
the respondent No.2 cannot seek adjudication of
her rights in the present proceedings, which are
referred under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition
Act on account of objection tendered by respondent
4
WP No. 7794/2021 | 2022:KHC:22493
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
No.3 by filing a suit. By merely filing an impleading
application, respondent No.2 - impleading applicant
cannot extend scope of enquiry under Section 30 of
Land Acquisition Act, which is not permissible.
5.The jurisdiction of Court in a reference under
Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act made by the
Collector is confined to consideration of the dispute
expressly referred to by the collector. Person
claiming share in compensation money, who was
not party to proceeding before the Collector, cannot
be made part to apportionment case and new
matter cannot be allowed to be adjudicated under
Section 30 of the Land Acquisition proceedings. The
impleading applicant having filed an impleading
application seeking leave of the Court to be a party
to the reference under Section 30 of the Act was
required to demonstrate that she is a 'person
interested' and entitled to obtain compensation
having filed an impleading application. The said
application need not accompanied by any document
except bald allegations contending that she is a
joint owner along with the said K.Govardhan.
6.The proper disposal of a reference under Section
30 of the Act requires adjudication as to the person
to whom the compensation is payable and as to the
apportionment of that compensation between them.
It is further court hearing of reference to take all
necessary steps to ensure an effective and complete
adjudication is rendered. But, before the Court can
be compelled to relegate the parties for
adjudication, the impleading party has to make out
a case and demonstrate that she is an 'interested
party'. Having filed an impleading application, she is
not even go forward to argue on the case.
7.Undisputedly, the manner the impleading
applicant - respondent who is a intervener,
admittedly is not a party to the proceedings before
the land Acquisition Officer. It is also not in dispute
that the impleading applicant has not filed any
application for reference either under Section 18 of
the Act or 30 of the Act. Therefore, the
respondents, who is seeking impleadment much
after reference was made by the Reference Court, is
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
not entitled to come on record by invoking
provisions under Order I Rule 10 of CPC.
12.11. By relying on Chikkasubbanna's case he
submits that it is only an 'interested party'
entitled to the compensation amount who may
agitate to be impleaded at the stage of
reference and the Respondents not being an
interested party cannot be entertained for
impleadment and the Trial Court has erred by
doing so.
12.12. By relying on Upnivesh Awas, Ram Prakash
Agarwal and Chikkasubbanna's cases, he
submits that the jurisdiction to the Reference
Court flows from sections 18 and 30 of the LA
Act upon the Land Acquisition Officer's
reference based on the objections raised and
hence cannot widen its adjudication beyond the
reference made, the Respondents being non-
parties to the proceedings before the District
Collector and not having preferred a reference
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
under the relevant provisions cannot be
brought-in as parties to the reference
proceedings by allowing the impleading
application filed under Order I Rule 10 of the
CPC.
12.13. He relies on the decision of this Court in
Nirmala Bai vs Vijay Kumar and Ors.5, more
particularly para nos. 8 and 10 thereof, which
have been reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
8.Reverting to the matter relating to the
application for impleadment filed by the petitioner
in Execution Petition No. 33/2011, it is noticed
that the Executing Court took note of all the
relevant facts and proceeded to reject the
application so filed by the petitioner, while
observing as under:
"7. The grounds made out by the decree holder in
his objections to the application filed by third party
are not denied by learned counsel for third party
applicant. Even no material is placed by the third
party applicant to show that her name in LAC No.
10/1988/LAC571/1993, is not deleted. Even it is
not denied by learned counsel for third party that
there was no compromise. Further from the
compromise decree in RA No.77/2008 which is on
record, it is held that the suit OS No.117/1998 of
the present third party is dismissed against the
5
2018:KHC-K:4000
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
decree holder and that the present third party lost
her right in OS No.117/1998. No material is placed
by the third party in these proceedings against the
said compromise decree in RA No. 77/2008. From
the affidavit filed by the third party in support of
the application, it is clear that the third party has
suppressed all these circumstances before the
court. No material to show that she had challenged
the order rejecting her claim in LAC No. 10/1988.
No material placed by third party to have
challenged the compromise decree in RA No.
77/2008. No material is placed by the third party
against the Judgment and Decree in OS
No.117/1998 wherein she had allegedly claimed
1/9th share in the compensation amount. Further
it is pertinent to note that in the present
proceedings itself the third party applicant had
filed the similar application under order 1 rule 10
CPC to implead herself and that subsequently she
has withdrawn the said application on the ground
that she has compromised with the decree holders
out of the court. These are the factual
circumstances to consider as relevant here.
Learned counsel for the decree holder relies the
principle laid down in AIR 1969 Mysore 313 and
submits that a person not party before land
Acquisition Officer cannot be impleaded by the
Civil Court under Section 30 of land Acquisition
Act. Similarly he submits that order 1 rule 10 CPC
is not applicable to proceedings under Section 18
and 30 of Land Acquisition Act (AIR 1996 SC
1513). This is the legal position in respect of the
application filed by the third party.
8. Thus as seen from the material on record it is
clear that the application filed by the third party
applicant Nirmalabai is not maintainable and the
same is able to be dismissed. Accordingly, I
answer points for consideration in negative."
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
has duly supported the order impugned and while
relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of Shyamali Das v. Illa Chowdhry: 2006
(12) SCC 300, has contended that the petitioner,
who was not a party to the reference proceedings,
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
was not entitled to maintain the application for
impleadment in the execution proceedings.
12.14. By relying on Nirmala Bai's case, his
submission is that a non-party before the Land
Acquisition Officer cannot be impleaded in a
reference under Section 30 of the LA Act and
more particularly an impleading application
(Order 1 Rule 10) is non-maintainable in
respect of proceedings initiated under Section
18 and 30 of the Act.
12.15. He then submits that any third-party claiming
interest in the award amount ought to seek a
reference under section 30 of the Act before the
Land Acquisition Officer, in a case where the
amount in the award passed is already paid,
the person claiming to be the aggrieved party
shall have to approach the competent Court to
instead seek for recovery of the amount against
the receiver of the compensation under the
award.
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
12.16. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in My George vs Special Tahasildhar
& Ors.6, more particularly para no. 27 thereof,
which has been reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
27. In G.H. Grant (Dr.) v. State of Bihar [AIR 1966
SC 237] this Court has held that if a "person
interested" is aggrieved by the fact that some other
person has withdrawn the compensation of his land,
he may resort to the procedure prescribed under
the Act or agitate the dispute in suit for making the
recovery of the award amount from such person.
12.17. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in G.H. Grant vs State of Bihar7, more
particularly para nos. 18 and 19 thereof, which
have been reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
18. The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act is that
all disputes about the quantum of compensation
must be decided by resort to the procedure
prescribed by the Act : it is also intended that
disputes about the rights of owners to
compensation being ancillary to the principal
dispute should be decided by the Court to which
power is entrusted. Jurisdiction of the Court in this
behalf is not restricted to cases of apportionment,
6
(2010) 13 SCC 98
7
AIR 1966 SC 237
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
but extends to adjudication of disputes as to the
persons who are entitled to receive compensation,
and there is nothing in Section 30 which excludes a
reference to the Court of a depute raised by a
person on whom the title of the owner of land has,
since the award, devolved.
19. It was strongly pressed that under Section 31
of the Land Acquisition Act the Collector is bound to
tender payment of compensation awarded by him to
the persons entitled thereto according to the award
and that implied that a right in the amount of
compensation arises to the person to whom
compensation is directed to be paid under the
award, and therefore the only persons who can
raise a dispute under Section 30 are those whose
names are set out in the award. This contention
stands refuted by the plain terms of Section 30. The
Collector is not authorised to decide finally the
conflicting rights of the persons interested in the
amount of compensation : he is primarily concerned
with the acquisition of the land. In determining the
amount of compensation which may be offered, he
has, it is true, to apportion the amount of
compensation between the persons known or
believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of
whose claims, he has information, whether or not
they have appeared before him. But the scheme of
apportionment by the Collector does not finally
determine the rights of the persons interested to
the amount of compensation: the award is only
conclusive between the Collector and the persons
interested and not among the persons interested.
The Collector has no power to finally adjudicate
upon the title to compensation : that dispute has to
be decided either in a reference under Section 18 or
under Section 30 or in a separate suit. Payment of
compensation therefore under Section 31 to the
person declared by the award to be entitled thereto
discharges the State or its liability to pay
compensation (Subject to any modification by the
Court), leaving it open to the claimant to
compensation to agitate his right in a reference
under Section 30 or by a separate suit.
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
12.18. By relying on My George and G.H. Grant's
case, his submission is that any claims as
regards compensation by persons who are
third-parties to the Collector's award can be
remedied only by filing a reference application
under Section 18 or 30 of the LA Act and hence
in this matter the impleading applicants should
exercise their statutory right instead of by-
passing into the proceedings via impleadment
while lacking locus for the same.
12.19. On the basis of the above submissions he
submits that the writ petitions are to be allowed
and the impugned orders to be set-aside.
C. Submissions of Ld. Counsels for Respondent
Nos.1 to5:
13. Smt. Maya T.R. learned HCGP appearing for
Respondent No.1 would submit that
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
13.1. Learned HCGP submits that an impleading
application could neither have been filed in a
reference proceeding nor could be entertained
by the Court. Without the person being named
in the preliminary notification or final
notification, an award having been passed; a
person claiming interest cannot directly
approach the Reference Court for being
impleaded. In this regard, she supports the
cause of the petitioner.
14. Sri. Sanjeev Kumar C. Patil learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2, would
submit that;
14.1. the beneficiary of the acquisition submits that
insofar as the beneficiary is concerned, it does
not matter if the impleading application is
allowed inasmuch as any claim of a third party
would be resolved in the said proceedings, thus
giving a go-by to multiplicity of proceedings
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
and as such the beneficiary would make
payment of the due amounts in whosoever's
favour the Court were to direct.
15. Shri. Harshvardhan R. Malipatil, learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.3 to 5 would
further submit that:
15.1. The filing of impleading application was to
assert the right of the impleading applicant in
the property. While determining the
compensation payable, the Reference Court
could also determine the apportionment of
compensation. If the contention of the
Petitioner were to be accepted, it would result
in multiplicity of proceedings inasmuch as the
impleading applicant would have to first
approach the Deputy Commissioner and/or the
SLO who would then make a reference. By that
time, the present proceedings would have
culminated, requiring another reference
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
proceedings to be held, resulting in confusion
as regards the implementation of the orders
and as such, the trial Court has rightly allowed
the impleading application so as to avoid
multiplicity of proceedings. On that basis, he
submits that the writ petitions as filed would
have to be dismissed.
16. Heard Shri. Ravi B. Patil, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, Smt. Maya J.R. learned HCGP for
Respondent No.1, Shri. Sanjeev Kumar C. Patil,
learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Shri.
Harshvardhan R. Malipatil, learned counsel for
Respondent Nos. 3-5.
D. Points for Consideration:
17. Upon perusal of the arguments advanced and the
relevant material on record, the points that would
arise for the consideration of this Court are:
1. Whether a third-party to acquisition
proceedings claiming rights over the
compensation amount awarded ought to
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
approach the Deputy Commissioner for a
reference of dispute?
2. Whether a third-party claiming rights over
a property and hence compensation
thereof in respect of land acquisition can
implead one-self directly before the
Reference Court?
3. Whether the Order of the Trial/Reference
Court allowing the impleading application
suffer from any legal infirmity and
requires interference at the hands of this
Court?
4. What Order?
18. I answer the above points as under:
19. Answer to Point No.1: Whether a third party to
acquisition proceedings claiming rights over the
compensation amount awarded ought to
approach the Deputy Commissioner for a
reference of dispute?
AND
20. Answer to Point No.2: Whether a third-party
claiming rights over a property and hence,
compensation thereof in respect of land
acquisition can implead one-self directly before
the Reference Court?
20.1. The facts giving rise to the above matters and
the issues have been detailed hereinabove.
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
Suffice it to say that in all the above matters, a
third party to the award passed subsequent to
the acquisition had sought to implead in the
reference proceedings. The reference
proceedings having been filed for enhancement
of compensation by the persons whose name
had been mentioned in the preliminary as also
final notification and in whose favour award has
been passed.
20.2. When the land is to be acquired, the details for
identification of the land, details of the owner of
the land as also the extent of the land proposed
to be acquired is published in the preliminary
notification. Subsequent thereto, notices are
issued to the persons named in the said
preliminary notification inviting them to submit
their objections, if any, to the acquisition and
after consideration of the said objections, a
final notification is issued. This is the normal
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
and general procedure followed in all acquisition
proceedings.
20.3. It may happen that on a preliminary notification
being issued, persons other than whose names
are mentioned in the preliminary notification,
do also object to the acquisition and as such,
their objections would be considered and their
names may also be found mentioned in the
final notification as also the award could be
passed, in the name of such third parties also.
Thus, unless there are third parties who have
objected to the acquisition, the final notification
is normally issued only as regards the persons
whose name/s were found mentioned in the
preliminary notification and the award is passed
in relation thereto by naming only those
persons.
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
20.4. The above proceedings are ones which are
relating to applications filed by third parties at
the reference stage, inasmuch as the person in
whose name the award was passed, contending
that the award passed is for a lesser amount,
has sought for enhancement and the matter
has been referred to the Reference Court to
decide on the compensation to be paid by
taking into consideration the submissions and
contentions made that the award should have
been for a higher amount. Thus, in the
reference proceedings, the said proceedings
being filed by one or more of the landowners;
those contentions would be taken into
consideration and the Reference Court could
either reject the contentions or by upholding
the contentions, enhance the compensation.
20.5. In the event of a party being aggrieved by the
enhancement or rejection of enhancement or
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
lesser enhancement than what has been
claimed, an appeal could also be filed and so on
and so forth.
20.6. Normally, the proceedings in reference and/or
appeal therefrom are between the acquiring
authority, beneficiary of the acquisition and the
land loser whose name has been mentioned in
the final notification/award.
20.7. In the above matters, what has happened is
that on a reference being made, certain
persons had approached the Reference Court
seeking for being impleaded in those
proceedings claiming that they have a
subsisting interest in the properties and their
claim is also required to be considered by the
Reference Court while considering the reference
for enhancement of compensation. The
impleading applications being allowed, the
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
petitioners are before this Court seeking for the
aforesaid reliefs.
20.8. Their contentions have been detailed
hereinabove. While formulating the above
points for consideration, the word 'third party'
has been used. This usage is not to denote
that the applicant has no interest in the
property but only to denote that the applicant is
a third party to the acquisition proceedings,
insofar as the applicant was not named in the
preliminary notification, no notice was issued,
no objections were filed by such person, and
the final notification does not contain the name
of such person. Consequently, the award also
does not contain the name of such person.
Thus, the reference made to a third party is
only with regard to such third party not being a
party to any notification or proceedings till that
point of time. Whether such applicant has an
- 36 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
interest in the property acquired or not, it is not
the subject matter of these proceedings.
20.9. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
18. Reference to Court. - (1) Any person interested who
has not accepted the award may, by written application to
the Deputy Commissioner, require that the matter be
referred by the Deputy Commissioner for the determination
of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement
of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to
whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the
compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which
objection to the award is taken:
Provided that every such application shall be made within
ninety days from the date of service of the notice from the
Deputy Commissioner under Sub-section (2) of Section 12.
(3)(a) The Deputy Commissioner shall within ninety days
from the date of receipt of an application under subsection
(1) make a reference to the court.
(b) If the Deputy Commissioner does not make a
reference to the Court within a period of ninety days from
the date of receipt of the application, the applicant may
apply to the Court to direct the Deputy Commissioner to
make the reference, and the Court may direct the Deputy
Commissioner to make the reference within such time as
the Court may fix.
20.10. Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the
process of making an award does not
contemplate any detailed enquiry into the
interest of any person in the property to be
- 37 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
acquired. However, in terms of Section 22 of
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, the Collector could also
require any such person to make or deliver to
him at a time and place mentioned, a
statement containing the name of every other
person possessing any interest in the land or
any part thereof as a co-proprietor, sub-
proprietor, mortgagee, tenant or otherwise,
including the nature of such interest, etc., and
it is thereafter, that an award could be passed.
20.11. Once an award is passed, possession of the
land could be taken and it is only at that stage
that under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, any
person interested who has not accepted the
award may, by written application to the
Collector, require that the matter be referred by
the Collector to the appropriate Court for
- 38 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
determination of the compensation, objections
as regards measurement, the person to whom
it is payable, or the apportionment of
compensation among the persons interested
who are already named in the notification/s or
the award.
20.12. Under sub-Section (2) of Section 18, the
applicant is required to state the grounds on
which the objection to the award is taken. If
the person making it was present or
represented before the Collector within six
weeks from the date of the Collector's award, in
other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of
the notice from the collector under subsection
(2) of Section 2, or within six months from the
date of the Collector's award, whichever period
shall first expire. Thus, the proviso to
Subsection (2) of Section 18 contemplates an
application under Section 18 to be filed by a
- 39 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
person who was not present or represented
before the Collector.
20.13. The reference, however, is made under Clause
(b) of the Proviso that within six weeks of the
receipt of the notice from the Collector under
Subsection (2) of Section 12 which
contemplates the Collector being required to
give notice of the award to such of the persons
interested as not present personally or by the
representatives when the award is made. That
would indicate that the appearance which has
been mentioned in the proviso is as regards the
physical appearance and/or representation
through someone else and does not
contemplate a person who is not party to the
acquisition proceedings in the manner as afore
detailed.
- 40 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
20.14. The second part of Clause (b) of the Proviso to
subsection (2) of Section 18 indicates that the
application under Section 18 shall be made
within six months from the date of the
Collector's award. But however, the reference
point for calculation is the receipt of the notice
under subsection (2) of Section (12) or from
the date of award, whichever is earlier. Thus,
by referring to the second portion of Clause (b)
of subsection (2), it could be contended that a
third party who is not a party to the acquisition
proceedings could also file a reference
application but since the same is considered in
juxtaposition to a notice under subsection (2) of
Section 12, it necessarily would imply that an
application to be filed under Section 18, the
applicant is required to be a party to the
acquisition proceedings.
- 41 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
20.15. Under the Act of 2013, the procedure for
determining compensation is slightly different.
An award can be passed by the Collector in
terms of Section 23 thereof. Corrections could
be made by the Collector in the award in terms
of Section 33 thereof and while doing so,
consider any representation as regard to
clerical or arithmetical mistakes and in terms of
Section 64, refer the matter to the authority to
consider the objections, if any, raised by any
person interested who has not accepted the
award. A similar provision as in subsection (2)
of Section 18 is incorporated in Section 64.
20.16. Thus, whether under the Act of 1894 or the Act
of 2013, unless details have been secured by
the Collector under the Act of 2013 of any other
person interested, then the application for
enhancement of compensation and/or disputing
the boundaries or the like can be made only by
- 42 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
a party to the acquisition and not by a third
party. This right under Section 18 of the Act of
1894 or under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 is
one conferred by statute and is limited to a
person who is a party to the acquisition and not
otherwise.
20.17. If a third party were to make an application to
be impleaded in these proceedings claiming an
interest, then in that event, it is the right of the
third party which is required to be determined
even prior to the application to consider
enhancement of compensation, thus giving rise
to a completely adversarial situation between
the persons who have initially applied for
reference and the person who now seeks to
come on record, contending that he or she or
they have an interest in the property requiring
compensation to be paid to them.
- 43 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
20.18. Insofar as the Reference Court is concerned,
the jurisdiction being derived by the Reference
Court on the basis of a reference order passed
by the Collector or authority under the Act of
1894 and insofar as the Act of 2013, the order
of reference passed by the Collector, it is in
terms of the reference made that the authority
will get the jurisdiction as held by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Shyamali Das's case and the
scope of such reference proceedings is only to
decide the objections referred to it as held by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prayag Upnivesh
Awas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v.
Allahabad Vikas Pradhikaran's case.
20.19. Under Section 18, it would be the compensation
and under Section 30, it would be the
apportionment which could be considered.
Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
- 44 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
30. Dispute as to apportionment. - When the amount of
compensation has been settled under section 11, if any
dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any
part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any
part thereof, is payable, the Deputy Commissioner may
refer such dispute to the decision of the Court.
20.20. A perusal of Section 30 would also indicate that
where an amount of compensation has been
settled under Section 11, if any dispute arises
as to apportionment, the Collector may refer
such dispute to the decision of the Court. Thus,
even for a reference to be made as regards a
dispute of apportionment, the claim or dispute
raised as regards apportionment would be
between the parties who are before the
Collector and not otherwise; and in terms of
Section 30, it is this dispute raised as regards
apportionment, that is the inter se dispute
between the person claiming interest in the
land that the Collector could be referred to the
Reference Court for adjudication.
- 45 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
20.21. Without a reference being made under Section
30, no dispute as regards apportionment could
be considered by the Reference Court and
without a reference being made under Section
18, no dispute as regards the quantum of
compensation and/or measurement of the land,
the person to whom it is payable or the
apportionment of compensation among the
persons interested could be made.
20.22. As afore observed, this would presuppose that
all the interested parties are parties before the
Collector and all of them have been referred to
the Reference Court either under Section 18 or
under Section 30. This being the Scheme of
the Act of 1894 and more or less the same
Scheme in the Act of 2013, however, these
matters being related to the Act of 1894, this
Court restricts itself to the Act of 1894.
- 46 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
20.23. It being clear that there is required to be a
reference under Section 18 or 30 for the
Reference Court to exercise jurisdiction and the
scope of the proceedings being restricted by the
order of reference, a third party to the
acquisition proceedings was not named in the
acquisition notification or was not before the
Collector with objections or the like, cannot
seek to implead himself or herself in the
reference proceedings filed by another
interested party who was a party to the
acquisition.
20.24. In those circumstances, the third party to the
acquisition is not remediless inasmuch as a
third party who was not a party before the
Collector or named in the acquisition
notification could always approach the Collector
placing on record the claims of such third party
which could be considered by the Collector if it
- 47 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
were to come within the purview of Section 18
and 30 and refer the matter to the very same
Reference Court.
20.25. There could also be a situation where there is
no reference made by the parties to the
acquisition but a third party to the acquisition
could approach the Collector laying an
independent claim as regards such third parties'
right over the property claiming that the
person/s who have been named in the
acquisition notification and/or the award do not
have any interest in the property and as such,
the award has to be made in favour of such
third party. Even in such situation, Section 18
would come to the rescue of such third party
since it relates to the persons to whom it is
payable or the apportionment of the
compensation among the persons interested.
The first part relating to the persons to whom it
is payable would include even a claim of a party
- 48 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
who is not a party to the notification or the
award.
20.26. In view of the above, I answer the Points No.1
and 2 as under:
20.26.1. A third party to the acquisition
proceedings claiming right over the
compensation amount awarded
cannot approach the Reference Court
seeking to implead himself or herself
in the said proceeding.
20.26.2. The third party to the acquisition
notification and/or the award would
have to necessarily approach the
Collector/Deputy Commissioner
placing on record the claim of such
third party and claiming that it is the
third party who is entitled to the
compensation, which could be
considered by the Collector or Deputy
- 49 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
Commissioner and the matter be
referred to the Reference Court. This
reference could be made to the very
same Reference Court if already a
reference is pending and if no
reference is pending, then a reference
could be made to the Reference Court
as regards the claim of such third
party to the acquisition.
20.26.3. It would be mandatory for the
Collector to refer all references
relating to a particular property
acquired under a particular
notification to the very same
Reference Court so as to avoid
multiplicity of proceedings and/or
inconsistent orders.
21. Answer to Point No.3: Whether the order of the
Trial/Reference Court allowing the impleading
application suffer from any legal infirmity and
- 50 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
requires interference at the hands of this
Court?
21.1. In view of my answers to Points No.1 and 2
above, it is clear that the third party to the
acquisition proceedings could not file
impleading application in a reference
proceedings. It is for the third party to
approach the Collector/Deputy Commissioner
seeking for reference of the claim of such third
party to the Reference Court. The same not
having been done, the trial Court directly
allowing the impleading application is not
contemplated under the scheme of the Act as it
stands today.
21.2. Though by reserving liberty to the third parties
to approach the Deputy Commissioner, the
Deputy Commissioner being duty-bound to
refer the matter to the Reference Court within
the time period prescribed, the filing of a fresh
application for reference, when the matter is
- 51 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
already pending before the Reference Court,
could only delay the proceedings.
Unfortunately, this is the Scheme of the Act and
what is contemplated under the Act, law being
required to be applied "as is" and not on the
basis of what "it ought to be".
21.3. The Reference Court deriving its jurisdiction
only under the reference, without a reference
being made, a third party's claim cannot be
considered by the Reference Court. It is always
available to the Law Commission of India to
suggest appropriate amendments to tide over
this anomaly and for the Parliament/Legislature
to accept it. Until then, this Court will be bound
to apply the law as is, which would require a
circuitous procedure to be adopted by the third
parties in approaching the Collector/Deputy
Commissioner for reference of the dispute and
- 52 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
not to seek for impleadment in the already
pending reference.
21.4. In that view of the matter, I am of the
considered opinion that the impugned orders
allowing the impleading application, are not
legally sustainable and are required to be set
aside.
22. Answer to Point No.4: What order?
22.1. In view of my above reasoning, I pass the
following:
ORDER
i) W.P.No.200812/2024 is allowed, a
certiorari is issued, the impugned order
dated 06.02.2024 passed on I.A.No.2 in
LAC No.107/2018 pending on the file of
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Bidar at Annexure-H is quashed.
ii) W.P.No.201485/2024 is allowed, a
certiorari is issued, the impugned order
– 53 –
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
dated 27.05.2024 passed on I.A. under
Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC in LAC
No.61/2022 pending on the file of
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Bidar at Annexure-F is quashed.
iii) W.P.No.201486/2024 is allowed, a
certiorari is issued, the impugned order
dated 27.05.2024 passed on I.A. under
Order I Rule 10 of CPC in LAC No.60/2022
pending on the file of Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Bidar at Annexure-G
is quashed.
iv) Liberty is reserved to the impleading
applicants in all the above matters to
approach the Deputy Commissioner
seeking for reference of their respective
claims to the Reference Court and if a
reference is made by the Deputy
Commissioner, it shall be made to the
very same reference court before whom
the other references are pending, the
Reference Court is directed to consider all
– 54 –
NC: 2024:KHC-K:10011
WP No. 200812 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201485 of 2024
WP No. 201486 of 2024
the aspects together and pass necessary
orders.
v) In the event of the reference court
disposing of the pending references before
a reference is made on the claim of the
impleading applicants or the collector not
referring the claims of the impleading
applicants to the reference court, liberty is
reserved to the impleading applicants to
initiate such proceedings as are
permissible, in which event the impleading
applicants will have the benefit of Section
14 of the Limitation Act, as regards the
time spent in the above proceedings from
the time of filing of the impleading
application.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
PRS, List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1
[ad_1]
Source link