IMPORTANT POINTS
Reference court derives jurisdiction only in terms of the order of reference; cannot consider any question other than the referred ones.
Order I, Rule 10 of CPC has no application in acquisition proceedings.
No amount of consent can confer jurisdiction on a court when it has none.

S. B. SINHA, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) APPLICABILITY of the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the Code of civil Procedure (the Code) in a proceeding under Section 18 of the Land acquisition Act, 1898 (the `act') is in question in this appeal which arises out of a Judgment and Order dated 8-11-2006 passed by a learned Single judge of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, Madurai in Civil Revision petition (P. D.) (M. D.) No. 743 of 2006.

( 3 ) APPELLANT claims himself to be a Muthavalli of Sha Madhari Diwan wakf. The said properties were acquired by the State of Tamil Nadu in terms of the provisions of `the Act'. Appellant as a `person interested' took part in the proceedings for making an award. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, he sought for a reference for enhancement thereof pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof the Collector of the District made a reference to the civil Court. The said reference was transferred to the Court of Second additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli by the learned District Judge. Prior thereto, a suit for recovery of possession of certain properties and damages was instituted by the father of the appellant No. 2 herein against haji Syed Zehrudin @ Jana Basha Alisha Sadguru in the court of the munsif, Tiruchirappalli which was marked as O. S. No. 649 of 1986.

( 4 ) THE said suit was decreed holding that the properties in question were wakf properties and the plaintiff therein was the Muthavalli thereof. Haji syed Zehrudin preferred an appeal thereagainst. The said appeal was dismissed. A second appeal preferred thereagainst marked as S. A. No. 488 of 2000 was also dismissed holding that once the property had been dedicated to Wakf, no question of joint ownership of the properties by the individuals in respect thereof would arise.

( 5 ) APPELLANT No. 2 is said to have been appointed as a temporary muthavalli of the Wakf. By an order dated 9-04-2002, the matter relating to appointment of a permanent Muthavalli was said to have been kept in abeyance.

( 6 ) IN the reference proceedings, marked as L. A. O. P. No. 18 of 2005, the first respondent filed an application for getting himself impleaded as a party therein contending that he was interested in the subject matter of a part of the property acquired, being the property described in Schedule `b' in O. S. No. 305 of 1951 as in the judgment rendered therein it was allegedly held that the same should be treated as common properties and that certain religious obligations were to be performed from its income and the balance to be divided amongst the co-sharers. It was furthermore alleged that the second appellant who was in-charge of the management of the said property had not discharged the duties cast upon him. Several other contentions with which we are not concerned herein were also raised.

( 7 ) A copy of the said application was served upon the counsel for the parties. It is interesting to note that whereas the learned counsel appearing for the appellant therein made an endorsement, `taken Notice. Prays for time for filing counter', the learned Government pleader, while taking notice is said not to have received `no objection' pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof alone, the learned Second Additional Subordinate judge by an order dated 21-10-2005 directed :

"petition filed by the Petitioner under Order 1 rule 10 (2) and Section 151 CPC prays to impleading the person namely S. J. Syed zindasha, S/o. Syed Jaffar Hussain, 32, Heber road, Palakkarai, Tiruchy 1 as 5th Respondent in the above petition. 2) Notice to Respondent counsel and reports no objection and hence the petition is allowed without costs. "

( 8 ) A revision application was filed thereagainst which has been dismissed by reason of the impugned Judgment. It is now not in dispute that a review application was also filed which was dismissed by the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge by an order dated 31-01-2006. We