- (1.) R. K. Mahajan, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 19th Oc tober, 1995 passed by the Additional Dis trict Judge/special Judge, Dehradun in L. A. Case No. 454of 1990, Virendrakumar v. Collector, in reference sent by opposite party No. 2 under Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act praying that the revision may be allowed and the award in Case No. 25 of 1987-88 pertaining to plot Nos. 496, 497 and 499 area 8,83 acres, situate in village Raipur, Pargana Par-wadoon, Tahsil and district Dehradun be set aside.
(2.) THE short and legal question in this revision, which arises, is that if the person interested has not filed objections under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter be called the Act) and the reference is made by the Collector under Section 30/31 (2) of the Act to the decision of the Collector regarding the apportion ment and disbursement of the compensa tion of money, can he apply to the Court i. e. District Judge, under Section 18 of the Act for impleading as a party as he is a person interested within the meaning of ection 3 (b) of the Act? The brief facts leading to this con troversy are detailed hereinafter: Notification was made with respect to the aforesaid land under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 18-3-1988. Dec laration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 30-4-1988 and the possession was taken on 30-12-1988. The award was pronounced by the Collector on 28-4-1990. It is also admitted fact that nobody moved application under Section 18 of the Act for making reference and the Collec tor on 6th November, 1990 had made ref erence under Section 31 (2) read with Sec tion 30 of the Act to the Court after depositing the amount. Shri Ravi Kant Jain, learned Coun sel for the revisionists has submitted that certain persons were recorded as Bhumid-hars but they were not in possession in revenue record and some other persons were recorded in possession but their names were not figured in the revenue record as 'bhumidhar'. The revisionists moved an application on behalf of tenure-holder Hari Ram Nagalia and Ors. before the reference court i. e. District Judge al leging that they were co-tenure owners with other tenure-holders and they be im-pleaded as party for disbursement and ap portionment of compensation and the ap plication of Hari Ram etc. was rejected by the Additional District Judge. Sri Jain, learned Counsel for the revisionists has submitted that nobody has made the refer ence and there is no bar of being impleaded as a party before the District Judge for adjudication of the matter in dispute and according to him, the revisionists are inter ested persons and even if they have not filed objections under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition, they are at liberty to join later on. He has described the order of the Court below as illegal and has not appreciated the correct approach of law.
(3.) SRI S. C. Budhwar, learned Counsel for the respondents has argued that the revisionists are not interested persons as they have not filed objections under Sec tion 9 read with Section 11 of the Act, they are debarred to be impleaded as a party and the order of the Court below is correct. He further submitted that the revisionists have lost the litigation before the Civil Court as well as before the Revenue Court and they have suppressed this fact. Both the learned Counsel have relied authorities in support of their respective contentions. The reference would be made later on.;