Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Machindra Santaram Kutwad, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Reference Court (Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur) in L.A.R. No.456 of 2009, which allowed the impleadment of respondent nos.1 to 3 as claimants. The petitioner was the original owner of the acquired land. The land was acquired by the State of Maharashtra for the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC). The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award, and the petitioner sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of compensation. During the pendency of the reference, respondent nos.1 to 3 filed an application (Exh.14) claiming that they had purchased the land from the petitioner after the acquisition notification but before the award, and therefore they were entitled to the compensation. The Reference Court allowed their impleadment. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that the claimants were not the owners at the time of acquisition and that the sale deed executed by him was void. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the impleaded claimants were necessary parties as they claimed an interest in the compensation amount. The court noted that the right to compensation is a valuable right that attaches to the land at the time of acquisition, and any subsequent transfer does not affect the entitlement of the person who held the interest at the time of acquisition. However, since the claimants claimed to have purchased the land before the award, they had a right to be heard. The court also observed that the petitioner had himself executed the sale deed in favor of the claimants, and therefore could not deny their claim. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Reference under Section 18 - Impleadment of Claimants - The Reference Court allowed impleadment of respondent nos.1 to 3 as claimants under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, holding that they were necessary parties as they claimed interest in the compensation amount. The court upheld this order, noting that the claimants had purchased the land after the acquisition notification but before the award, and their right to compensation could not be defeated by a subsequent sale deed executed by the petitioner. (Paras 1-6) B) Land Acquisition - Right to Compensation - Transfer of Interest - The court held that the right to compensation is a valuable right that attaches to the land at the time of acquisition, and any subsequent transfer of the land does not affect the entitlement of the person who held the interest at the time of acquisition. However, if the claimants have a valid claim, they must be heard before the award is made. (Paras 3-5) C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 10 - Necessary Parties - The court held that persons who claim an interest in the subject matter of the suit (compensation) are necessary parties and must be impleaded to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The Reference Court's order allowing impleadment was proper and did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impleaded claimants (respondent nos.1 to 3) have a right to compensation in the land acquisition reference, and whether the petitioner (original landowner) can challenge the award on the ground that the claimants were not the owners at the time of acquisition.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Reference Court allowing impleadment of respondent nos.1 to 3 as claimants. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Section 18
- Reference Court
- Impleadment of claimants
- Right to compensation
- Necessary parties
- Sale deed after acquisition
