B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, CJ.

( 1 ) A common question arises in this bunch of writ petitions. It is whether the company or the authority for whose benefit a land is being acquired by the Government is entitled to apply for impleading itself in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and whether it can be so impleaded by the civil court.

( 2 ) AT the instance of the writ petitioner, the Gorakhpur Development Authority, Gorakhpur, the Government notified certain lands in village Rampur and other villages under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Proceedings were accordingly taken and award passed. Possession of the land was also taken and delivered to the Authority. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the owners of the land applied for making a reference to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act, which was done. One of such reference is L. A. Reference No. 67/87 (concerned in C. M. W. P. No. 22107 of 1987 ). In this reference, the Gorakhpur Development Authority applied for impleading itself as a party respondent. Its case was that since the land is being acquired for its purpose and also because whatever compensation is payable has to be paid by it, it is a necessary party to the said reference and accordingly be impleaded as such. It also stated in its application that the development work was actually in progress on the land acquired. This application was opposed by the land-owner. According to him, the land is being acquired by the Government, and not by the Authority and it has no right to be impleaded in the said reference. Whatever compensation is determined by the court will be paid by the Government to him and the Authority does not come into the picture. It was submitted that Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C. does not apply in view of sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act. The application for impleadment has been dismissed by the learned District Judge, against which the present writ petitions have been filed.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the Gorakhpur Development Authority, the petitioner herein, submitted, on the strength of the decision of the Supreme Court in Himalaya Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. v. Francis Victor Coutinho, AIR 1980 SC 1118 that the Authority for whose benefit the land is being acquired and who has ultimately to bear the burden of paying the entire compensation amount is a person interested within the meaning of the said expression as defined in clause (b) of Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act and is, therefore, entitled to be impleaded in the pending reference. He brought to our notice that Section 53 of the Act applies the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to the proceedings before the Court under the Act, and, therefore, Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C. is available and attracted. He relied upon certain decisions of this Court and of the Supreme Court in support of the said proposition.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, Sri Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent-land owners opposed the petition. His reasoning runs as follows :

( 5 ) NO doubt, Section 53 of the Act applies the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code to a reference under Section 18, but the said application is a qualified one, namely, to the extent its application is not excluded by the context of the Land Acquisition Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 50 read with Sections 18 and 30 of the Act excludes the application of Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C. by necessary implication. The decision of the Supreme Court in Himalaya Tiles, AIR 1980 SC 1118 was not rendered with reference to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, but with reference to a writ proceeding. In any event, the principle enunciated in the said decision is directly in conflict with an earlier decision of a co-ordinate bench of the Supreme Court in the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Chandulal Shamaldas Patel, (1971) 3 SCC 821. A Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document