Polaki Rojamani and Others vs Mandal Revenue Officer and Others

Motilal B. Naik, J.—Order passed in unnumbered I.A. of 1997 which is filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC in L.A.O.P. No. 39 of 1990 by the Subordinate Judge, Rajam, dated 29-1-1997 is assailed on various grounds in this revision.

Few facts are necessary for disposal of this revision, Which are as under: The Land Acquisition Officer acquired Ac.21-81 cents of land belonging to Sri Jagannadha Swamivari Temple, Palakonda in the year 1981 for the purpose of construction of houses to the weaker sections. After completion of land acquisition proceedings, the award was passed in Award No. 1/86-87. As the award was passed, the Executive Officer of Sri Jagannadha Swamivari Temple, Paiakonda (Decree-holder in L.A.O.P.No. 15 of 1987) filed E-P. No. 19 of 1990 on the file of the-Sub-Judge, Rajam and obtained warrant for execution of the order passed in L.A.O.P. No. 15 of 1987. However, the execution proceedings have not reached finality as a result of the stay order granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in CMP No. 1533 of 1990 in A.S. No. 1654 of 1988 against the L.A.O.P. No. 15 of 1987.

Few cultivating tenants of the above temple lands have also filed their claims u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming compensation on the ground that they are the cultivating tenants of the temple lands during the relevant period of acquisition and are entitled for compensation and sought a reference u/s 30 of the Act to the Civil Court. On the basis of these claims by the tenants, the Land Acquisition Officer referred their claims to the Civil Court, i.e., Court of the Subordinate Judge at Rajam u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for the apportionment of compensation awarded by the said Court u/s 18 of the Act and the said reference was numbered as L.A.O.P.No. 39 of 1990.

While so, these petitioners numbering 10, claim that they are interested persons and sought to get themselves impleaded in the said L.A.O.P. No. 39 of 1990 pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Rajam, by filing the unnumbered I.A. of 1997 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC. The said application was rejected by the Court below on the ground that the matter pending in L.A.O.P. No. 39 of 1990 is almost ripe for orders and were directed to approach the District Collector to pursue their remedy. Assailing this order of the Court below, the present revision is filed.

I have heard Sri S. Udayachala Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the first respondent.

On a hearing of both the Counsel, the only issue that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the petitioners herein could be permitted to get themselves impleaded in L.A.O.P. No. 39 of 1990 pending before the Court below?

For appreciation of the issue involved, it would be relevant to extract the provisions contemplated u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ''the Act'') which are as under:

Section 30: Dispute as to apportionment:-

"When the amount of compensation has been settled u/s 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 Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court."

A reading of the above provision makes it clear that the Collector after passing the award u/s 11 of the Act, is entitled to refer the matter to the Civil Court if a dispute arises as to the apportionment of the compensation among the claimants or as to the persons to whom the said compensation has to be paid. There are two ingredients contemplated in this provision. Firstly, if there is any dispute as to the apportionment of the compensation, a reference could be made u/s 30 of the Act. Secondly, if there is any dispute as to the claim and counter-claim by the parties, such dispute could be referred u/s 30 of the Act requiring the Civil Court to determine as to who are the persons entitled to receive the compensation.

Insofar as the first limb of the provision is concerned, viz., dispute as to the apportionment of the compensation, the Civil Court is only entitled to determine the quantum of compensation to be paid to each claimant. This can only be done after the amount of compensation has been settled u/s 11 of the Act. In other words, the claimants shall lay a claim before the Land Acquisition Officer for receiving the compensation and if the Land Acquisition Officer is unable to decide as to who shall get how much, then he has to refer the said dispute to the Civil Court u/s 30 of the Act. The Civil Court has, in those circumstances, to determine only the quantum of compensation to be paid to each of the claimants. The Civil Court has no power to implead third parties who are not referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer as in my considered view, they are not ''interested parties.

Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that the provisions of the CPC are applicable to the land acquisition proceedings before the Court if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

Order 1 Rule 10 (1) of the CPC provides that where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may, at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just. Likewise, Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 provides for striking down unnecessary parties to the suit. What all required is that the Court shall satisfy itself, that in order to determine the real matter in dispute, a person shall be interested party in the matter for resolving the dispute and permit such person to be impleaded as one of the parties to the dispute. This provision enables an interested person to get himself/herself impleaded in a pending proceedings at any stage of the proceedings before the Court where the dispute is pending for adjudication.

In the present case, the dispute referred by the Land Acquisition Officer in L.A.O.P.No. 39 of 1990 before the Sub-Court, Rajam is only on the question of apportionment of compensation among the claimants. The Court is called upon only to determine the quantum of compensation to be paid to each of the claimants already on record. I, therefore, hold that if a dispute is only as to the apportionment of the compensation among the claimants already on record, filing of an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC by certain persons seeking to implead themselves as parties to the dispute is not permissible as in my considered view, they are not ''interested persons'' in the dispute. On the contrary, if the reference u/s 30 of the Act is on the question of determining as to who are the persons entitled to receive compensation, then it is permissible to the Civil Court to entertain an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC as such parties are saved u/s 53 of the Land Acquisition Act which enables them to get themselves impleaded in the dispute.

It is not disputed that the reference pending before the Sub-Judge, Rajam, in L.A.O.P. No. 39 of 1990 is only on the question of apportionment of compensation. That being so, I am inclined to hold that the petitioners cannot seek permission from the Court to get themselves impleaded in the said O.P. under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC.

The view I have taken, there are no merits in this revision and the same in accordingly dismissed. However, no costs.