A. P. LAVANDE, J.:- Heard Mr. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, Mrs. Wandile, learned AGP for respondents 2 and 3 and Mr. Palshikar, learned counsel for respondent no.4.

2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 21.12.2006 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 159112006 setting aside the order dated 29.9.2005 passed by 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in Land Acquisition Case No. 196/2000.

3. Briefly, the facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under :-

By Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act" for short) which was published in the official gazette dated 19.3.1998, State of Maharashtra acquired lands for the public purpose. The land bearing Survey No.107 situated at mouza Chikhali Nalha belonging to the appellant was part of the acquired land. Respondent no.3 Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award dated 6.7.1999. The appellant sought reference under Section 18 of the Act vide application dated 11.1.2000 seeking higher compensation. On 23.4.2003 respondent no.1 filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to intervene in Land Acquisition Case No. 196/ 2000 on the ground that she was co-owner of the acquired land and as such she was necessary party to the reference proceedings. The said application was opposed by the appellant. The appellant denied that respondent no. 1 was the co-owner. By order dated 29.9.2005 the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur dismissed the application holding that if the said application was allowed, it would amount to enlarging the scope of the reference. The learned Judge held that respondent no. 1 was neither proper nor necessary party. The said order was challenged by respondent no. 1 by filing Writ Petition No.1591/2006. The learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 21.12.2006 held that respondent no.1 was a person interested and directed the Reference Court to add her as party respondent in the reference proceedings. The appellant has challenged the said judgment by filing the present appeal.

4. Mr. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Reference Court was right in passing the order dated 29.9.2005 and the learned Single Judge has illegally exercised jurisdiction by setting aside the said order. Mr. Agnihotri submitted that the ratio laid down in Sunderlal Vs. Paramsukhdas and others : AIR 1968 SC 366 is not applicable in the present case and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in placing reliance upon the said judgment while setting aside the order passed by the Reference Court. Mr. Agnihotri submitted that having regard to the provisions of the Act, respondent no. 1 is neither necessary nor proper party and as such she could not be joined as party in reference under Section 18 of the Act sought by the appellant. 'Learned counsel urged that jurisdiction of the Court under the Act is a special one and is confined to consideration of the objection taken by a person interested. According to learned counsel, Section 21 of the Act restricts the scope of the proceedings before the Court, Learned counsel further urged that the appellant having sought reference for enhancement under Section 18 of the Act, respondent no. 1 could not have been joined as party respondent in the reference, which would result in enlarging the scope of the reference, which is not permissible in law. It was further urged that respondent no. 1 was not a person interested within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is without jurisdiction.

In support of his submissions, learned counsel relies upon the following judgments:

(i) (Rai) Pramatha Nath Vs. Seery. of State : AIR 1930 Privy Council 64;

(ii) Kothamasu Kanakarathamma & Ors. Vs. State of A.P. & O

Click Here to Read the rest of this document