JUDGMENT

KASLIWAL, J. - The short controversy raised in the above appeal is whether the Union of India through the Deputy Inspector General, National Security Guard is a necessary and proper party to be impleaded when the land in question was acquired by the State of Haryana for the purpose of National Security Guard as desired by the Union of India.

2. The State of Haryana acquired some land situated in District Gurgaon for the purpose of National security Guard in 1985 as desired by the Union of India. The land-owners being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, submitted reference petitions under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). During the pendency of the reference application before the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, an application was moved by the Union of India for being impleaded in the array of the respondents on the ground that the land had been acquired for the purpose of National Security Guard being controlled by the Union of India. It was submitted that any order enhancing the compensation would adversely affect the Union of India and it would be deprived of an opportunity to file an appeal, in case it is not impleaded as a party. The Additional District Judge by his order dated November 28, 1988 dismissed the application filed by the Union of India. It may be noted that some of the land-owners had impleaded Union of India as a party, but in 25 cases including the present case the Union of India was not impleaded as a party. The Union of India aggrieved against the order of the Additional District Judge filed a revision before the High Court. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana by its order dated May 24, 1989 dismissed the revision placing reliance upon the Full Bench decision of the same court in Kulbhushan Kumar & Co. v. State of Punjab [AIR 1984 P&H 55 : (1983) 85 Punj LR 768 : (1983) 2 Land LR 483]. This Full Bench decision in turn relied on the decision of the Full Bench of the same Court in Indo Swiss Time Ltd. v. Umrao. [AIR 1981 P&H 213 : (1981) 83 Punj LR 335 : 1981 Land LR 285]

3. In order to resolve the controversy and to decide the question raised in this appeal by grant of special leave, we would refer to the cases decided by this Court and the Full Bench decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court relied in the impugned order. In Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Chandulal Shamaldas Patel [(1971) 3 SCC 821] decided on January 8, 1970, a Division Bench of two Judge of this Court held that the land was notified for acquisition by the State Government for the use of the Municipal corporation, but that did not confer any interest in the municipal Corporation so as to enable it to file an appeal against the order of the High Court allowing the petition. In the said case certain lands belonging to Chandulal Shamaldas Patel, the respondents were notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Act by the Government of Bombay by a notification dated February 19, 1959. The area in which the land was situated was subsequently allotted to the State of Gujarat on the bifurcation of the State of Bombay under the States Reorganisation Act, 1960, as such the Divisional commissioner of the State of Gujarat issued a notification under Section 6 on May 2, 1961. Both the notifications were challenged in the High Court of Gujarat on various grounds and the petition was allowed by the High Court. The Municipal corporation of the City of Ahmedabad being the fourth respondent in the writ petition in the High Court filed an appeal before this Court against the order of the High Court. A preliminary objection was raised against the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the Corporation was not aggrieved by the order of the High Court. This Court allowed the preliminary objection on a short ground that though the property was notified for acquisition by the State Government for the use of the Municipal Corp