O. 1, R. 10, C. P. C. cannot be invoked by a person who is not a party to the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer to be impleaded as a party in the proceedings pending in the court on reference by invoking O. 1, R. 10, C. P. C.

G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THESE two revisions have come up for consideration on a reference that has been made by our learned brother N. D. Patnaik, J. O. P. 336 of 1979 on the file of the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, arose on account of a reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, as there is a dispute regarding the title to the property acquired. In that an application has been filed by the respondent under O. 1, R. 10, C. P. C. to implead himself as a party. Petitioners, who were respondents 3 and 4 objected for impleading the respondent in the C. R. P. No. 343/90 as a party. The learned Additional Judge by his order dated 30/10/1989, impleaded him as one of the respondents and hold that the question whether he has got any right in the property can be decided in the reference which is pending before the Court. The learned Single Judge felt that there should be an authoritative pronouncement on the question, as to whether a person who is not a party to the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer can be impleaded as a party in the proceedings pending in the court on reference by invoking O. 1, R. 10, C. P. C. Hence, he has referred the matter for decision by a Bench, So, the point that arises for consideration is whether O. 1, R. 10, C. P. C. can be invoked by an interested person for the purpose of coming on record in a reference that has been made under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. On a previous occasion when a similar point arose for consideration, the matter has been referred to a Bench in Vadlamani Sarojini Devi v. T. Satyaranarayana Rao (1988 (2) APLJ 275 to decide whether O. 1, R. 10, C. P. C. can be invoked by a person interested so as to implead himself as a party to the proceedings. The Bench declined to answer that question. But on facts it found that the person, who was impleaded as a party on an application under O. 1, R. 10, C. P. C. , was already there on record during the award proceedings. The Bench found that the name of that person was not mentioned in the order of reference by mistake though he was a party to the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer and therefore he is entitled to be impleaded as a party in the proceedings before the Civil Court. Relying on the above decision of the Bench, the learned Counsel for the respondents Mr. K. Raghava Rao contends that the Bench has found that O. 1, R. 10, C. P. C. is applicable in a reference under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. To our mind, since the Bench has declined to answer the reference, the view taken by the Bench cannot be said that they have answered the reference implicitly thereby stating that O. 1, R. 10, C. P. C. is applicable when a reference is made under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. Hence, it is now for this Court to decide whether O. 1, R. 10, C. P. C. can be invoked or not by a person who is not a party to the proceedings?

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents relying upon a decision of this Court in Lakshmi Bai v. State of A. P. , 1984 (1) APLJ 242 contended that a third party to the proceedings can be impleaded as party-respondent by invoking O. 1, R. 10, C. P. C. and that the same view has been expressed by different courts including that of the Supreme Court in Himalaya Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. v. F. C. Coutinho, AIR 1980 SC 1118. He further submits that the restricted view that a person not a party to the reference made either under S. 18 or under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be joined as a party is no longer tenable in view of the above Supreme Court decision.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel has also referred to a catena of decisions in support of his argument. In Kishan Chand v. Jagannath Prasad (1903) ILR 25 All 133 the Division Bench ruled:"we see no reason for restraining the wide language of S. 53 and the provisions of S. 53 and the provisions of S. 32 of the C. P. C. appear to us to be in no way an inconsistent wit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document