JUDGMENT :

Shampa Sarkar, J.

1. The revisional application arises out of an order dated April 12, 2023, passed in LA 316 of 2004 by the Special Land Acquisition, First Court at Alipore, District 24 Parganas (South).

2. By the order impugned, the learned court allowed an application for addition of party filed by the opposite party no.2. According to the learned court, Smt. Ratna Mitra, the opposite party no.2 was a co-owner of the acquired land, but for some reason or the other, the Collector had taken Ashoke Kumar Roychowdhury, that is the predecessor of the petitioner, to be the exclusive owner of the land. Reference to Form-16 of the case record was made.

3. According to the learned court, as notices were not issued to anybody else apart from Ashok in connection with the acquisition proceeding, none of the co-owners including Ratna’s mother had the opportunity to seek a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), within the stipulated time.

4. The court observed that as the notice of the award had not been served upon the other co-owners, (heirs of Sushil Kumar Roychowdhury) the application for addition of party should be allowed by taking aid of Section 53 of the said Act.

5. The legal proposition that in the absence of a reference under Section 18, the learned LA Judge could not go beyond the reference and implead any person in the proceeding, would not apply to a case when the owner of the property did not receive any notice. According to the court, as the Collector had not sent notices either under Section 9 or under Section 12 (2) of the said Act, Ratna’s application could not be discarded on the sole ground that she had not filed any objection before the learned Collector in terms of Section 18 of the said Act.

6. Relying on a decision of Bagh Singh and ors. vs. The special Land Acquisition Collector, District Courts Jalandhar and anr. reported in AIR 1984 P & H 177, the learned court observed that if a joint property was acquired and the co-owners did not have any distinct and specified share, then a reference under Section 18 of the said Act, by one of the co-owners, for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, would enure to the benefit of the other co-owners as well.

7. This exposition of law, according to the learned court, was not at variance with the settled proposition that an objection to the award could reach the LA court only on a reference by the Collector under Section 18 of the said Act. The learned LA Judge was of the opinion that Section 53 of the said Act could be pressed into action as addition of Ratna was not inconsistent with other provisions of the said Act. The Civil Procedure Code could be applied. Ratna’s mother was an heir of the original owner and Ratna was claiming through her mother. Her mother did not have any notice about the award and could not seek reference. Ratna could directly be added in the proceeding as the co-owner and a person interested.

8. On the above grounds, the application for addition filed by Ratna in the LA proceeding was allowed. Ratna was added as a party in the proceeding as a claimant. The cause title was directed to be amended accordingly.

9. Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the order impugned suffered from jurisdictional error. Section 53 of the said Act made the Civil Procedure Code applicable only in cases when such addition would not be inconsistent with the provisions of the said Act. In this case, without a reference under Section 18, the learned court could not have looked into Ratna’s application at all. Section 53 was inconsistent with Section 18 of the said Act.

10. Section 18 allowed a ‘person interested’, who had not accepted the award to apply before the Collector and ask for a reference seeking determination of the objection by the court. Objections could be with regard to the measurement of the l