MEDHA BRAT AND ORS. Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (RLY) UNA AND ORS.
LAWS(HPH)-2015-7-87
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on July 30,2015

Medha Brat And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
Land Acquisition Collector (Rly) Una And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sanjay Karol, J. - (1.) THE issue which arises for consideration in the present petition is as to whether a co -sharer, raising an issue of apportionment of the amount of compensation, can be impleaded as a party after a period of three years of filing of a composite petition by another co -sharer, under the provisions of Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) UNDISPUTEDLY , Amba Dutt and Rudar Dutt filed the said composite petition seeking (i) enhancement of the amount of compensation so determined by the Collector (Land Acquisition) and (ii) apportionment of the amount received by party respondent Smt. Bimla Devi. Allegedly amount belonging to the reference petitioners and inter alia Medha Brat, Dev Brat and Ratni Devi, successors -in -interest of Jagat Ram (hereinafter referred to as the applicants) was wrongly received by her in excess of her share holding. Such application for impleadment filed by the applicants stands rejected by the Court below vide impugned order dated 7.9.2010, passed in CMA No. 189 of 2010, titled as Medha Brat & others v. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) & others, for the reason that the share of the owners is distinct and specific and the application having been filed beyond the statutory period of limitation, was not maintainable.
(3.) THERE is no dispute that the land, jointly owned by the parties herein, stood acquired in terms of common award passed by the Collector (Land Acquisition). It is also not in dispute that the applicants did not seek any reference under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. Only during the pendency of the composite Reference Petition and that too after a period of three years, did they file an application for impleadment, specifically pleading that even though benefit of the enhanced compensation, if any, as a co -owner, would enure to them, but however since their interest is joint and indivisible, only for proper adjudication of the controversy and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, they be impleaded as a party.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.