The above two Petitions involve a common question and are therefore heard together and disposed of.

2. The issue in the Petition that arises is whether a party who was not before the Collector in the Land Acquisition Proceedings can be allowed to intervene in the reference proceedings under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the said Act').

3. The Petitioners in both the above Petitions have challenged the Order dated 30.03.2002, by which Order the learned Addl. District Judge, Panaji, has rejected the applications of the Petitioners for being allowed to intervene in the reference proceedings being Land Acquisition Case nos. 81/1999 and 82/1999. Since the Petition involves identical facts, the facts in Writ Petition no. 302/2003 would be referred to for convenience sake, The Petitioners in Writ Petition no. 302/2003 claim to be co-owners of the property “Ambotanem” and the acquired land from Survey no. 752 and 756 (subject matter of Land Acquisition Case no. 81/1999) and from survey no. 667 (subject matter of Land Acquisition Case no. 82/1999), which is a part and parcel of the property “Ambotanem”. The Petitioners claim to have inherited the said property from late Babasaheb Krishnarao Rane Sardessai and that the said property “Ambotanem” belongs to them and that they are necessary parties in the said reference proceedings and, therefore, they should be impleaded in the said reference cases. The Petitioners, therefore, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, for intervention in the said reference proceedings.

4. The said application was resisted by the Respondents herein as not maintainable in law as the Petitioners who sought intervention were not parties before the Land Acquisition Officer and the reference Court, therefore, could not go beyond the said reference which was referred to it, and therefore, prayed for rejection of the said application.

5. The reference Court i.e. the District Court, considered the said application and relying upon the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1996 S.C. 1513 in the matter of Smt. Ambey Devi vs. State of Bihar & anr., as well as the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in AIR 1987 Bombay 32 in the matter of Govind Narayan Lotlikar vs. Smt. Savitribai Raghuvira Lotlikar and another Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 1999(2) GLT 409, in the matter of Shri Dattaram Dev Dessai & Ors. vs. Shri Nirakar Devasthan of Palolem, held that since the jurisdiction of the reference Court while considering a reference under the Land Acquisition Act is restricted by the terms of reference itself and that by the reference the dispute that has arisen before the Collector among the parties who are before him, are referred to the District Court. The District Court held that it therefore necessarily follows that a person who was not before the Collector and who claims to have interest in the land and therefore is entitled to the payment of compensation or part thereof, is raising a new dispute and, as such, the said person cannot be impleaded. The reference Court further went on to hold that such person is not remedy-less and he can get his grievances redressed through the Civil Court. The reference Court also went on to hold that the Petitioners were aware of the lands acquired which were the subject matter of Land Acquisition Case no. 81/1999 and 82/1999 but chose to put up their claim only in respect of land acquired in Land Acquisition Case no. 83/1999. The Petitioners having not put up their claim before the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the land acquired in Land Acquisition Case no. 81/1999 and 82/1999, could not be now allowed to intervene in the aforesaid reference proceedings. The reference Court therefore, by the impugned order, rejected the said applications. As indicated above, the said impugned Order is subject matter of both the Petitions.

6. I have heard Shri Panga