IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5611-2019(O&M)

Date of Decision: 10.09.2025 Manoj Kumar ........ Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and ors. ......... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present:- Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate for respondent No.3.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

By way of present revision petition challenge has been laid to an order dated 13.08.2019 (P-5) passed by the learned Reference Court-cum-learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram; whereby an application preferred under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC at the instance of petitioner being “person interested”, in the pending proceedings arising out of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, stood declined.

2. Briefly stating, the petitioner happened to be co-sharer in the land comprised in Rectangle No. 135, Killa No. 11 min West (5- 12), 20 min West (6-6), 21 min West (6-18), Rectangle No. 136, Killa No. 6/2/1 min. West (1-11), 15/2 (3-8), 16/1(3-8), 25/2(3-6), total Kitta 7, total measuring 30 Kanal 9 Marla to the extent of 10/108 share situated within the revenue estate of Village Patli Hazipur, Tehsil-

Farukhnagar, District-Gurugram. Some part thereof came to be acquired vide notifications dated 11.12.2007 and 17.04.2008 issued under Sections 4 and 6, respectively, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’. The public purpose of acquisition was for setting up of Toll Plaza connecting National Highways 12, 8 and 10. The award under Section 11 of the Act was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector, (for short ‘the LAC’) on 24.12.2008. Some of the co-sharers of the petitioner sought reference Under Section 18 of the Act which was decided on 25.03.2013. Aggrieved thereof, Regular First Appeals were filed before this Court which were disposed of on 20.03.2018, whereby the decision of the Reference Court was set aside and the matter was remanded back for its fresh adjudication.

3. It was at this stage, the petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the petition under Section 18 of the Act for seeking his impleadment as applicant while claiming himself to be a co-sharer and beneficiary of the acquired land.

4. The prayer made in the said application was opposed at the instance of respondent HSIIDC. The learned Reference Court vide order dated 13.08.2019 rejected the application for his impleadment.

Hence the present revision.

5. Impugning the aforementioned order dated 13.08.2019 (P- 5), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicant being co-sharer in the joint land comprised in Rectangle No. 135, Killa No. 11 min West (5-12), 20 min West (6-6), 21 min West (6-18), Rectangle No. 136, Killa No. 6/2/1 min. West (1-11), 15/2 (3-8), 16/1(3-8), 25/2(3- 6), total Kitta 7, total measuring 30 Kanal 9 Marla to the extent of

10/108 share situated within the revenue estate of village Patli Hazipur, Tehsil- Farukhnagar, District-Gurugram, as well as beneficiary against the acquired land, was a necessary party and thus his prayer for impleadment was required to be allowed so as to permit him to pursue his rights towards grant of similar compensation as was to be assed in favour of his other co-sharers. In support, he also places reliance upon Section 3 (b) read with Section 20(b) of the Act to submit that the petitioner being “person interested” though was required to be served upon notice by the learned Reference Court, however, the same being not effected; on an application moved at the instance of petitioner/ “person interested” himself, the learned Reference Court could not have declined his impleadment. In support of his aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Bhag Singh and others Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Collector and another, reported as AIR 1984 (Punjab) 177 and para 4 thereof being relevant, is extracted hereunder:-

“4. So far