Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from land acquisition proceedings where the Land Acquisition Officer made a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to the Reference Court for apportionment of compensation among parties named in the reference. During pendency, respondents 1 and 2, claiming to be co-owners of the acquired property, filed an application for impleadment. The Reference Court allowed the application by order dated 29 April 2015. The petitioners, legal representatives of the original claimant, challenged this order in a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa, contending that respondents 1 and 2 were not parties before the Land Acquisition Officer and that the Reference Court lacked jurisdiction to implead them. The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Ram Prakash Agarwal v. Gopi Krishan (2013) 11 SCC 296 and its own earlier judgment in Govind Narayan Lotlikar v. Savitribai Raghuvira Lotlikar (1986 Mh. L. J. 844), held that the Reference Court's jurisdiction is strictly limited to the terms of the reference made by the Collector. Allowing a new party to be impleaded would change the nature of the dispute and enlarge the scope of the reference, which is impermissible. The Court observed that a person not before the Collector can separately seek his remedy by filing a suit or other appropriate proceedings, but cannot directly approach the Reference Court. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the impleadment application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Apportionment of Compensation - Section 30, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Impleadment of Third Party - Person not named in reference by Collector cannot be impleaded as it would alter the dispute referred and exceed the Reference Court's jurisdiction; the Reference Court derives jurisdiction solely from the order of reference and cannot enlarge its terms - Held that impleadment application filed by respondents who were not parties before Collector is not maintainable; impugned order set aside and application dismissed (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a person who was not a party before the Land Acquisition Officer can be impleaded in reference proceedings for apportionment under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 29 April 2015 passed by the Reference Court is quashed and set aside; the application for impleadment filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 is dismissed. Rule is made absolute.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Reference Court's jurisdiction under Section 30 Land Acquisition Act is limited to parties and dispute referred by Collector
- impleading a new party not before Collector changes nature of reference and exceeds jurisdiction
- such party may seek remedy by separate suit
- Order 1 Rule 10 CPC cannot be used to widen reference
- pro interesse suo applications not maintainable before Reference Court
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (05) 170
Writ Petition No. 856 of 2016
Citation not available, 2016:BHC-GOA:3229
Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Vinita Vishram Palyekar, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondents
Purshottam V. Dessai (since deceased) through LRs: Smt. Bharathi P. Dessai, Mr. Mahesh P. Dessai, Mrs. Mahima M. Dessai, Mr. Divakar P. Dessai, Mrs. Manisha D. Dessai
Prakash Naik Gaonkar, Draupadi Prakash Naik Gaonkar, and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Reference Court allowing impleadment of third parties in proceedings for apportionment of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the order dated 29 April 2015 passed by the Reference Court allowing the impleadment application of respondents 1 and 2.
Filing Reason
The Reference Court allowed an application by respondents 1 and 2 to be impleaded as parties in the apportionment reference, even though they were not named in the reference by the Land Acquisition Officer and were not parties before the Collector.
Previous Decisions
The Land Acquisition Officer made a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Reference Court to decide the dispute between the parties named therein; the Reference Court subsequently passed the impugned order impleading respondents 1 and 2.
Issues
Whether a person who was not a party before the Land Acquisition Officer can be impleaded in reference proceedings under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that respondents 1 and 2 were not parties before the Land Acquisition Officer and were not named in the reference; the Reference Court's jurisdiction is limited to the parties and dispute referred by the Collector; allowing impleadment would change the nature of the dispute and enlarge the terms of reference, which is impermissible; reliance was placed on Ram Prakash Agarwal v. Gopi Krishan (2013) 11 SCC 296 and Govind Narayan Lotlikar v. Savitribai Raghuvira Lotlikar (1986 Mh. L. J. 844).
Respondents did not appear despite service and no arguments were advanced on their behalf.
Ratio Decidendi
In proceedings under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Reference Court derives its jurisdiction solely from the order of reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer. It cannot entertain an application for impleadment by a person who was not a party before the Collector, as that would alter the dispute referred and enlarge the scope of the reference, which is impermissible. Such a person may seek appropriate remedy by way of a separate suit or other proceedings.
Judgment Excerpts
The nature of the dispute referred to will be substantially changed, for a new dispute incorporating the claim of such a person will be raised. This is not permissible, as the jurisdiction of the District Court in a reference under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act is restricted to the precise terms of the reference.
The Reference Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain any application of pro interesse suo, or in the nature thereof.
It is well established that the Reference Court gets jurisdiction only if the matter is referred to it under Section 18 or Section 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.
Procedural History
Land acquisition proceedings were initiated. The Land Acquisition Officer made a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to the Reference Court for apportionment of compensation among named parties. During the pendency of the reference, respondents 1 and 2, who were not parties before the Collector, filed an application for impleadment claiming co-ownership of the acquired property. The Reference Court by order dated 29 April 2015 allowed the impleadment. Aggrieved, the petitioners (legal representatives of one of the original claimants) filed the present writ petition seeking to quash that order.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 30, Section 18, Section 9
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 1 Rule 10
