IMPORTANT POINT
If for one reason or the other, a party can not be impleaded as party to the proceedings, Court would not have jurisdiction to pass any interim order in his favour.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 3(b), 30 and 31 - Person interested - Land was acquired and since name of respondent appeared in record of rights, she was given notice of acquisition - Award was made - On application of respondent reference was made - Appellant filed a suit claiming title over said property and for injunction to restrain defendant from taking money from Land Acquisition Collector - Appellant filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC for her impleadment in reference proceedings - Application was dismissed - Writ petition filed by appellant was also dismissed by High Court and Appellant also failed to avail remedy u/s 30 and 31 of the Act - Her application before revenue authorities succeeded but High Court stayed operation of said order - On basis of said purported subsequent event appellant filed another application for impleadment in reference proceedings - Reference case was allowed by Land Acquisition Judge - Appellant filed application for setting aside said judgment of Land Acquisition Judge and it was entertained as misc. case - Order was passed for payment to be kept in abeyance until further order - Order was set aside in application filed under Article 227 of Constitution - Appeal - Prime facie appellant could not be said to have any right, title, or interest in property - If a party could not be impleaded as party to proceedings, Court would not have jurisdiction to pass interim order - No reason to interfere.
       Held : The Act is a complete code by itself. It provides for remedies not only to those whose lands have been acquired but also those who claim the awarded amount or any apportionment thereof. A Land Acquisition Judge derives its jurisdiction from the order of reference. It is bound thereby. Its jurisdiction is to determine adequacy or otherwise of the amount of compensation paid under the award made by the Collector. It is not within its domain to entertain any application of pro intersse suo or in the nature thereof. The learned Reference Judge, therefore, was entirely correct in passing its order dated 22.6.2004. A finding of fact was arrived at therein that the appellant was not a party interested in the proceeding within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act. The said order attained finality. It could not have, thus, been reopened. Another application for impleadment, therefore, was not maintainable. It may be true that in the proceeding of a suit, the court can in a changed situation entertain a second application under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. But, the learned Reference Judge having opined, while passing its order dated 26.2.2004, that the appellant was not a person interested, in our opinion, a second application despite the subsequent event was not maintainable. It is one thing to say that a proceeding under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act was maintainable at the instance of the appellant. She was given an opportunity to file the same by the Calcutta High Court in terms of its order dated 22.09.2000. She did not avail the said opportunity. Having not availed the opportunity, in our opinion, she was not entitled to be impleaded as a party.(Para 18 to 20)
       We may also notice that prima facie the appellant cannot be said to have any right title and interest in the property but we do not intend to express our final opinion thereupon as the matter is pending consideration before the Civil Court. A disputant is entitled to an interim order, provided he is a party thereto. If for one reason or the other, he cannot be impleaded as a party to the proceeding, the Court would have no jurisdiction to pass any interim order in his favour. If the impleadment application was not maintainable, it was, required to be dismissed in limine. It could not have been entertained only for pressing an interim order. Law does not contemplate exercise of such a jurisdiction by a court of law. Any such order passed is coram non judice. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. (Paras 24 to 27)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. - Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 30th September, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court in C.O. No. 347 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the revision application filed by Respondent No. 1 herein from a judgment and order dated 26th August, 2005 was allowed.

3. Appellant and Respondent No. 3 claimed themselves to be the heirs and legal representatives of Rani Rashmoni. The appellant states that after demise of Rani Rashmoni, the entire estate comprising Touzi No. 145 devolved upon Raja Amrita Nath Das. Upon his demise, the property devolved upon his four sons whereafter a partition took place amongst his legal heirs.

4. A part of Tauzi No. 145 was admittedly acquired in the year 1993 for construction of housing estate by the West Bengal Housing Board. Name of Respondent No. 1 herein admittedly appeared in the record of rights. She was given notice of acquisition. Possession of the land was taken from the respondent on 16.07.1997. An award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 26.11.1998. Dissatisfied with the said award passed by the Collector, the respondent made a request to the Collector to make a reference in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"); pursuant whereto or in furtherance whereof a reference was made on 18.02.1999. Some other references were also made at the instance of Respondent No. 1 which were registered as L.A. Case Nos. 3 to 35, 38 and 39 of 2001.

5. On or about 15.09.2000, the appellant filed a purported public interest litigation before the High Court of Calcutta which was marked as writ petition No. 14842 of 2000 challenging the acquisition of land and change in the names of the owners thereof in the record of rights. By an order dated 15.09.2000, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

6. The appellant filed a suit bearing suit No. 57 of 2001 claiming title over the said property on 7.09.2001 in the Court of 9th Civil Judge, Sr. Division inter alia for passing a decree for mandatory injunction restraining the defendants therein from taking any money from the Land Acquisition Collector and for declaration that the appellant was the rightful owner of the properties described in the Schedule appended thereto and also for a decree for recovery of possession. The said suit is still pending.

7. Although an award had been made, the appellant filed two applications, one under Sections 11 and 11-A of the Act on 5.08.2004 before the Collector and another under Sections 5 and 5-A thereof objecting to the acquisition of the land thereby. Concededly, the said applications were not maintainable at that stage.

8. She filed an application under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for her impleadment in the reference proceedings inter alia on the premise that she had filed the aforementioned suit No. 57 of 2001. The said application was dismissed by an order dated 22.06.2004 by the learned Land Acquisition Judge opining that she was not a person interested within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act. It was held that as the jurisdiction of the reference court arises out of the order of reference, the provisions of Order I, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure was not maintainable. The correctness or otherwise of the said order has not been questioned and, thus, it attained finality.

9. She also filed a writ petition in the High Court at Calcutta which was marked as Writ Petition No. 1928 of 2000. A learned Single Judge of the said High Court opined:

"This Court sitting in writ jurisdiction cannot determine the entitlement to the compensation awarded. Therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved, it is open to her to apply before the collector for reference under section 30 read with section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act if she is so advised. Section 30 does not postulate any time limit and as such it can be made at any poin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 1036

IMPORTANT POINTIf for one reason or the other, a party can not be impleaded as party to the proceedings, Court would not have jurisdiction to pass any interim order in his favour.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
If for one reason or the other, a party can not be impleaded as party to the proceedings, Court would not have jurisdiction to pass any interim order in his favour.