The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of impleading the requisitioning body in execution proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act to provide a binding adjudication to the issue and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

1. This Revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 25.02.2004 in R.E.A.No.954 of 1995 in REP.No.1/93 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Salem. By the said order, the Executing Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner herein seeking to implead themselves in the execution proceedings thereby denying them to right to contest the claim of the first respondent.

2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow campus.

The petitioner is a educational institution and a third party to the proceeding. The first respondent herein was the original land owner, whose lands were subject to land acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, (herein after referred to as the “Act”). The acquisition proceedings were initiated by the second respondent herein for the purpose of the petitioner institution. It appears that there was no challenge to the land acquisition proceedings and the land in question was handed over to the petitioner. The first respondent/land owner not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, sought for enhancement and the same was referred to the Sub-Court, Salem, under Section 18 of the Act and the said reference was taken on file as LAOP.No.134 of 1962. The Reference Court passed decree on 03.05.1975 and as against which, appeals were filed before this Court in A.S.Nos.496, 565 & 785 of 1975 and the same were disposed of by Judgment and Decree dated 15.07.1980. The first respondent/land owner filed execution petition to execute the said Judgment and decree in the execution petition, wherein the first respondent made a total claim of Rs.2,27,762.30/-, this total claim was under two heads, namely enhanced compensation for market value, solatium and interest of Rs.64,915.97/- and equitable compensation for advance possession of Rs.1,62,846.43/-.

3. According to the first respondent the claim under the second heads, namely equitable compensation is liable to be paid, since the possession of the lands were handed over to the petitioner institution well in advance, before the award was passed. On coming to know about the execution petition filed by the first respondent, the petitioner for whose benefit the land was acquired, filed the application in REA.No.954 of 1995 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC r/w Section 20(d) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It was contended that the amount awarded as compensation by the land acquisition officer was paid by the petitioner to the first respondent and the enhanced compensation as awarded has also been deposited by the petitioner institution and the claim of Rs.1,62,846.43 under the head equitable compensation is a new claim not covered by any of the decree or award and such claim cannot be adjudicated by the Executing Court, as the Court go behind the decree. Therefore, the petitioner contended that they are proper and necessary party to the execution proceedings and prayed for impleadment.

4. As the first respondent/land owner resisted the application by contending that since the possession of the land was handed over to the petitioner prior to the award, he is entitled for equitable compensation and such claim need not find place in the decree and the petitioner herein is need not to be arrayed as the respondent in the execution petition. The Executing Court by order dated 25.02.2004, dismissed the application for impleadment and as against which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present revision petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Executing Court is a non-speaking order and has not considered any of the points raised by the petitioner. Further, in terms of Section 20(d) of the Act, which came to be inserted by Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1990, if the acquisition is not made for the Government, the person or authority for whom it is made, shall be entitled to notice. The petitione