Change in law if operates as res judicata.

These revision petitions are directed against the orders made in REA.Nos.255/91,252/ 91 and 558/91 in R.EP.Nos. 127/87 in L.A.O.P.No.9 of 1986, R.E.P.165/87 in L.A.O.P.No.10 of 1986 and R.E.P.17/91 in L.A.O.P.No.3 of 1987 respectively on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem, in which the learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the petitions filed by the revision petitions to implead it as a party in the execution proceedings.

2. Short facts are:

On reference under Sec. 18 of Land Acquisition Act awards were passed in L.A.O.Ps.9 and 10 of 1986on 21. 1987and in L.A.O.P.No.3 of 1987 on 7. 1987. The claimants filed execution petitions to realise amounts awarded in those L.A.O.Ps. At that time, the revision petitioner herein had filed the aforesaid R.E.A.Nos.255, 252 and 558 of 1991 to implead it as a party. That was objected to by the respondents. After hearing the parties, the learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed those petitions. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner in the court below has come forward with these three civil revision petitions.

3. Mr.S.Ramasubramaniam, the learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, would submit that the court below has dismissed the claim made by the petitioner on two grounds viz.,

.(i) Delay

.(ii) Res judicata and both these grounds cannot be sustained. He would further submit that the delay cannot be a ground for rejection of the claim and the ground of res judicata taken by the lower court is erroneous inasmuch as claim now made is due to change of law viz.; amendment of Sec.20 of the Land Acquisition Act by virtue of the amendment made in it which came into force on 5. 1990. Per contra, Mr.M.S.Umapathy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, would submit that the awards were passed in 1987 and now to realise the amounts given in the awards, execution petitions were laid and at this stage the revision petitioners cannot invoke Sec.20(d) of the Land Acquisition Act (which I shall hereafter refer to as ‘the Act’) inasmuch as that section would come into play prior to the determination of the enhanced compensation by the court. He would add that the scheme of the Act, would fortify his point that Sec.20 would come into play only prior to the fixation of the enhanced compensation by the court. The next submission made by him was that under Sec.20(d) of the Act only in a case where the acquisition is not made for the Government the person or authority for whom it is made should be served with a notice and this is not a case where acquisition is not made by any person or authority other than the Government and on this count also this section will not be attracted. He lastly submitted that the provisions of O.1, Rule 10, C.P.C. is not applicable in the execution stage. Regarding these submissions put forth by Mr.Umapathy, Mr.S.Ramasubramaniam, the learned senior counsel, would submit that in the statement of objections and reasons given for the Tamil Nadu Amendment Bill, 1989 by virtue of which Sec.20(d) has been added, it is stated that it was intended for application to pending proceedings and as such, execution proceeding is a pending proceeding and so the petitioner can seek impleadment even at this stage. With regard to the objection that the land was acquired only for the purpose of the Government and not for any other person, he would submit that first two paras of notification under Sec.4, if read together, would make it explicit that it was not made for the purpose of Government but for steel plant township and ancillary industries and that the third para would indicate that it is not Salem Steel Project, Salem and that the petitioner herein, viz., Steel Authority of India Ltd., is the successor of Salem Steel Project, Salem. His further submission is that the petitioner claimed impleadment by virtue of Sec.20(d) of the Act and so the provisions of O.1, Rule 10, C.P.C. is not applicable even assuming that it cannot be applied in the e