MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) 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.

( 2 ) 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, Palakonda (Decree-holder in L. A. O. P. No. l5 of 1987) filed E. P. No. 19 of 1990 on the fileof the Sub-Judge,rajam and obtained warrant for execution of the order passed in LAOP 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 LAOP No. 15 of 1987.

( 3 ) FEW cultivating tenants of the above temple lands have also filed their claims under Section 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 under Section 30 of the A ct 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 under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for the apportionment of compensation awarded by the said Court under Section 18 of the Act and the said reference was numbered as L. A. O. P. No. 39 of 1990.

( 4 ) 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 la. 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.

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

( 6 ) 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?

( 7 ) FOR appreciation of the issue involved, it would be relevant to extract the provisions contemplated under Section 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 under Section 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. "

( 8 ) A reading of the above provision makes it clear that the Collector after passing the award under Section 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 under Section 30 of the Act. Secondly, if there is any dispute as to the claim and counter-claim by the parties, such dis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document