Mahant Ram Dass chela Mahant Garib Dass vs Man Singh

N.K. Kapoor, J.

This revision petition is against the order of District Judge dated 23.11.1993 declining the petitioner to be impleaded as party in terms of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

Petitioner filed an application to be impleaded as necessary/proper party in a reference sought by the respondents under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. According to the petitioner he is the Mahant of Mandir Chhatriwala situated at village Jharsaintly and so has vital interest in the pending reference for enhancement of the amount of compensation.To support it the counsel made reference to the civil litigation between him and the erstwhile Mahant as well as to the pendency of the RSA No. 569 of 1995 between the parties. The counsel thus argued that petitioner falls within the definition of `interested person'' as per section 3 subclause (b) of the Land Acquisition Act.

Counsel for the respondents on the other hand argued that petitioner has on locusstandi to be impleaded in a reference sought by the respondents.At best such a person can file a separate application and that too in terms of Section 18 and not otherwise. According to the learned counsel for the respondents no person can be compelled to implead a stranger and so the discretion exercised by the Court cannot be termed to be illegal in any manner.

Admittedly, RFA No. 569 of 1995 against the order of District Judge dated 7.1.1995 whereby the petitioner''s reference under Section 30 was dismissed stands admitted. The Court while admitting the appeal has further directed that the respondents are at liberty to withdraw the amount after furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the executing court and that in the event of success of the appeal, they shall return the amount to the appellant alongwith 12% interest. This order is dated 14.9.1995. Whether the petitioner is entitled to apportionment of compensation is a matter which is yet to be adjudicated by this Court in the pending appeal. Case of the petitioner is that he being an interested person can also file a separate application under Section 18 of the Act and in that eventuality all such applications are expected to be disposed of by one order. There appears to be some merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Primafacie petitioner comes within the definition of `interested person'' as per Section 3 Subclause (b) of the Act. Accordingly I accept the petition and allow the petitioner to be impleaded as party in the pending reference. However, it is made clear that respondents would be at liberty to withdraw the amount of compensation after furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the executing Court with a rider that in case ultimately the present petitioner succeeds in the appeal the amount of compensation to which the petitioner would be held entitled shall be paid back to him alongwith interest at the rate of 12%.

It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that evidence has already been concluded by the respondents. Accordingly, only one opportunity will be granted by the Court to the petitioner to adduce all his evidence and no further.