IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that clerical errors should not preclude a party from being included in legal proceedings, especially when they have raised valid disputes within the appropriate timeframe, and emphasized the importance of including all interested parties in adjudications under the Land Acquisition Act.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard Mr A.D. Bhobe for the Petitioner and Mr John Lobo for Respondent No.1(e) in all these Petitions. The endorsement dtd. 8/11/2018 confirms that all the Respondents have been served.

2. This Court, by an order dtd. 25/10/2018, while issuing notices to the Respondents, had made it clear that all these Petitions would be taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. This was more so since proceedings before the Reference Court were also stayed by this Court.

3. Accordingly, Rule is issued in all these Petitions, and these Petitions are taken up for final disposal.

4. The challenge in this Petition is to the separate but identical orders dtd. 10/8/2018, dismissing the Petitioner's applications for impleadment as a party in the references under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (said Act) on the ground that though, factually a reference was made concerning the Petitioner, due to a clerical error on the part of the Collector's Office, the Petitioner's name remained to be included in the references forwarded to the District Court

5. The learned Reference Court, relying upon the decision of Shayamali Das vs. Illa Chowdhry and ors. - Appeal (Civil) 4632 of 2006, has held that Order 1, Rule 10(2) of CPC does not apply to a reference under Sec. 30 of the said Act. Therefore, the Petitioner's applications for impleadment in the three pending references were rejected.

6. The Reference Court has also noted that Sec. 30 of the said Act does not postulate any time limit as such. Therefore, a reference under Sec. 30 can be made at any point in time if such an application is made to the Collector. In short, the Reference Court virtually advises the Petitioner to approach the Collector once again and urge a fresh reference under Sec. 30 of the said Act because there is no time limit as such within which such a reference can be applied for or made.

7. Mr Lobo, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1(e), endorses the reasoning of the learned Reference Court by submitting that the Reference Court had no power or jurisdiction to implead the Petitioner as a party in the pending references. He relied upon Hafix Ismail Shaikh and ors vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Panvel, and ors. [2005 (3) Mh.L.J. 232 in support of this endorsement of the view taken by the Reference Court.

8. Hafix Ismail Shaikh (supra) holds that the parties, who had not applied for enhancement, cannot be entitled to enhancement in the absence of their applying for enhancement against their share. Accordingly, the issue involved in Hafix Ismail Shaikh (supra) was different from the issue involved in the present Petitions. Similarly, even the issue in Shayamali Das (supra) was different. The third party, who had never raised any dispute before the Land Acquisition Officer about apportionment or enhancement, attempted to seek impleadment directly before the Reference Court in the pending reference under Sec. 30 of the said Act. It is in the above circumstances that it was held that the Reference Court could not, by resorting to the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC, broaden the scope of the reference.

9. However, the position in the present Petitions is entirely different. Here, the Petitioner, even within the time prescribed for applying a reference under Sec. 18 of the said Act, had applied the Collector/LAO raising disputes of the rate and apportionment. In these applications, the Petitioner had claimed the co-ownership regarding the acquired property. Some genealogy, in support of such a claim, was also provided. Besides, the Petitioner had expressed dissatisfaction with the quantum of compensation, as also the issue of apportionment was clearly raised by the Petitioner before the Collector/LAO.

10. Since there were disputes amongst the co-owners or the alleged co-owners, the Collector/LAO made a reference under Sec. 30 of the said Act to the Reference Court vide letter dtd. 28/2/2014. However, in this letter, the Petitioner's name was omit