Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the acquisition of family lands for the Twin City Project at Panvel. The original owner, Shaikh Mahammed Sileman Mestry, died in 1961, leaving four sons as his legal heirs. After his death, the revenue records reflected only the name of one son (respondent No.2) as the Karta and Manager of the joint family. When the acquisition took place, the award was made solely in the name of respondent No.2. He accepted the compensation and distributed it among the heirs. The family had agreed that respondent No.2 alone would seek a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation, as the award stood in his name. Consequently, a reference was filed. Years later, the other legal heirs (the petitioners) applied under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to be impleaded as parties to that pending reference, claiming they were "persons interested" within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act. The Civil Judge rejected the application, holding that while the petitioners were interested persons, they had waived their right by remaining silent for twenty years and could not be joined after limitation had expired. Aggrieved, they preferred the writ petition. Before the High Court, the petitioners contended that as interested persons, they had a right to be impleaded, relying on Sunderlal v. Paramsukhdas (AIR 1968 SC 366) and an unreported judgment of the same court. The respondents argued that only the person who had sought the reference could proceed, that the scheme of Sections 18 and 30 of the Act was distinct from the CPC, and that Section 53 could not be used to fill a substantive gap created by inaction. The court analyzed the relevant provisions: Section 3(b) defines person interested, Section 18 permits any such person to seek a reference, Section 19 requires the Collector to mention interested persons, Section 20 mandates notice to them, and Section 53 makes the CPC applicable save where inconsistent. The court then examined the Apex Court’s decision in Smt. Ambey Devi v. State of Bihar (AIR 1996 SC 1513), where it was held that the procedure under Sections 18 and 30 is inconsistent with Order I Rule 10 CPC, and that a valid application under Section 18 within limitation is a precondition for the civil court to entertain a claim for enhancement. Relying on that authority, the High Court concluded that a person interested who has not made an application under Section 18 cannot be impleaded later in the reference. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition – Impleadment of Persons Interested – Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and Order I Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – A person interested under the Act who has not made an application for reference under Section 18 cannot be subsequently impleaded as a party to the reference under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The making of a valid application under Section 18 within the period of limitation is a precondition for the Civil Court to adjudicate upon the claim for enhanced compensation; the specific procedure prescribed under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act excludes the operation of Order I Rule 10 CPC even with the aid of Section 53. Held, the impugned order rejecting the impleadment was correct. (Paras 6-7) B) Land Acquisition – Applicability of Code of Civil Procedure – Section 53, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to proceedings before the reference court only insofar as they are not inconsistent with anything contained in the Act. The scheme of Sections 18, 19, 20, and 30 provides a complete and self-contained procedure for reference and adjudication of claims; it is inconsistent with the general power under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead a person who did not seek a reference or file objections before the Land Acquisition Officer. Held, the Apex Court in Smt. Ambey Devi v. State of Bihar settled that Order I Rule 10 CPC cannot be invoked to bring on record a co-owner who remained silent and did not apply under Section 18. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a person interested under the Land Acquisition Act who did not make an application for reference under Section 18 can be impleaded as a party in the reference proceedings under Order I Rule 10 CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition. Following the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Ambey Devi v. State of Bihar, it held that a person interested who had not made an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be impleaded as a party to the reference under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The scheme of the Act, particularly the procedure under Sections 18 and 30, is inconsistent with the general impleadment provisions of the CPC, and the reference court’s jurisdiction is confined to claims properly raised through a valid Section 18 application. The impugned order of the Civil Judge was upheld.
Law Points
- Under the Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- a person interested who has not sought a reference under Section 18 cannot be impleaded as a party to the reference under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- as the scheme of the Act is inconsistent with such impleadment
- the procedure under Sections 18 and 30 is self-contained and overrides general procedural law under Section 53.
