( 1 ) RULE. Heard forthwith.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioners is that they along with respondent No. 2 had filed a reference for enhancement of compensation in respect of the lands of the family which were acquired by the respondent No. 2. On account of the apprehension that the respondent No. 2 would appropriate the entire compensation they moved under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code to implead them in the land reference. That application has been rejected and consequently the present petition.

( 3 ) THE lands have been acquired for Twin City Project. On behalf of the petitioners it is contended that the petitioners admittedly are the heirs of the deceased land owner. In the revenue records unfortunately on the death of Shaikh mahammed Sileman Mestry in 1961 only the name of the respondent no. 2 came to be mentioned by the village authorities as Karta and Manager of joint family. The late Shaikh Mahammed Sileman Mestry had four sons of which respondent No. 2 was one. Though it is the case of the petitioners, who are the other sons or legal heirs of the sons that their name initially had came to be included in the revenue records pursuant to M. E. No. 3945. However, the name of the respondent No. 2 came to be included as Karta. The award came to be made in the name of respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 accepted the amount and distributed the same amongst the heirs. It was decided that the reference for enhancement will be made only by respondent No. 2 as the Award was made in his name. It is, therefore, submitted that they are persons interested within the meaning of section 3 (d) as also in terms of section 18 (1) and section 20 of the Act and, therefore, the learned Judge is wrong in rejecting the application for being impleaded as parties to the reference.

( 4 ) BY the impugned order the learned Civil Judge has placed reliance on various judgments which were cited before him. The learned Judge held that the petitioners herein were persons interested. The learned Judge, however, then placing reliance on sections 18 and 53 of the Act held that considering sections 18 and 53 any person interested, can be joined or impleaded as party to the reference in view of section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, held that as the petitioners herein were having knowledge of the reference when made, but remained silent for 20 years, they had waived their right and after the period of limitation has expired cannot now be joined as parties to the reference as interested persons. The learned Judge was also pleased to hold that the petitioners have abandoned their rights and as such their application is liable to be dismissed.

( 5 ) AT the time of hearing of this petition on behalf of the petitioners their learned Counsel submits that they are interested persons and once they are persons interested they ought to have been impleaded considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sunderlal vs. Paramsukhdas and ors. , 1969 mh. L. J. (SC) 610 = Air 1968 SC 366. It may also be mentioned that the learned counsel also relied on unreported judgment of a single Judge of this Court in smt. Janabai Pandurang Gurav vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and anr. in First Appeal No. 1100 of 1997 decided on 6th August, 2004. On the other hand on behalf of the respondents their learned Counsel submits that the proceedings before the Reference Court are arising from a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Under section 18 of the act, it is only the persons who had sought the reference who can proceed with the reference. Considering the scheme of the Act other parties who were before the Land Acquisition Officer and who had filed the objections and/or interested, have to be given notice, it is further submitted that sections 18 and 30 of the Act, provide for distinct procedure other than what is provided under the Civil procedure Code and considering section 53 of the Act, there is no power in the referenc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document