V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) PRESENT civil revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 4.2.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 18, Varanasi in Reference No. 330 of 1987, Krishna Kumar v. District Magistrate, Varanasi, rejecting the application moved on behalf of the revisionists under Order 1 Rule 10(2), C.P.C. for arraying them as party in the aforementioned proceeding.
(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that for the purpose of construction of National Highway, land in dispute had been acquired, award was made on 7.1.1987 and thereafter reference was made, which was numbered as Reference No. 330 of 1987, Krishna Kumar v. District Magistrate, Varanasi. In the said reference, revisionists after twenty one year of reference moved an application contending therein that they have acquired knowledge of the reference of the property in question, which has been acquired, qua the same they have got Bhumidhari Right with Transferable Right, as such they are necessary parties. Said application was objected to by filing objection on 24.10.2008 and thereafter, same has been rejected. At this juncture present Civil Revision has been filed. Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionists contended with vehemence that in the present case, in proceeding under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act, revisionists had interest in the property in question, as such in all eventuality, their application ought to have been allowed, as such there is failure to exercise jurisdiction, and gross miscarriage of justice. After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed factual position, which is emerging in the present case is that reference in question had been made under U.P. Act No. 1 of 1894 and same had been pending since last twenty one year. It is undisputed position that revisionists have filed suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for declaration of their rights and till date, right of the revisionists has not at all been crystallized and in between application has been moved for impleadment. Concerned Court has considered the application and has clearly mentioned that in reference under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, provision of Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. are not applicable and for this purpose reliance has been placed on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Ambey Devi v. state of Bihar and another, AIR 1996 SC 1513. At this juncture, view point of Hon'ble Apex Court is being looked into. Relevant para 4 is being extracted below: "We accept the finding of the High Court that the appellant had not made any application under Section 18 though the appellant has asserted that she did make an application but no evidence has been placed before the High Court or in this Court. Thus, it is difficult to accept that such an application was in fact made before the Land Acquisition Officer within the limitation prescribed under Section 18(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant had not filed any application, as required under Section 18(1) read with Section 18(2) of the Act. Section 53 does not apply to the facts of the case. The procedure prescribed under Sections 18 and 30 is inconsistent with the procedure prescribed under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. would apply to implead a necessary or proper party to effectuate complete adjudication of all the disputes having arisen between all the necessary of proper parties who may be bound by the decision. That question does not arise since inconsistent procedure has been prescribed under the Act. As held earlier, making an application in writing under sub-section (1) and within the limitation prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 18 are conditions precedent for the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference under Section 18; only on its receipt, under Section 20 Civil Court gets jurisdiction to issue notice and thereafter to conduct enquiry as contemplated under the Act. At that stage, the procedure of trial etc., as contemplated under the C.P.C. would apply and Section 53 of the Act would become applicable. It is an admitted position that the co-owner filed an application and had sought reference under Section 18 in respect of his share only. So, it is, as a fact claims for compensation in specie and was paid towards 1/4th share to all the claimants. By no stretch of imagination, the application under Section 18(1) by one of the co-sharers would be treated as one made on behalf of all the co-sharers. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant is not entitled to lay any higher compensation pursuant to ah award made by the reference Court under Section 26 at the instance of one of the co-owners."
(3.) JUDGMENT quoted above is clear that procedure prescribed under Sections 18, 30 of Land Acquisition Act is in inconsistent with procedure prescribed under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. would apply to implead a necessary or proper party to effectuate complete adjudication of all the disputes having arisen between all the necessary or proper parties who may be bound by the decision. Said question does not arise since inconsistent procedure has been prescribed under the Act. Making an application in writing under sub-section (1) and within the limitation prescribed under sub-section (2) of the Section 18 are conditions precedent for the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference under Section 18. In this background provision of Order 1 Rule 10(2), C.P.C. cannot be pressed. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shyamali Das v. Illa Chowdhary and others, (2006) 12 SCC 300, has clearly taken the view that in the proceeding under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where the person is claiming title to the acquired land, he cannot be termed. The person interested within the meaning of Section 3(b) and application for impleadment in reference proceedings, on premises that suit had been filed is of no consequence. Case of revisionists does not stand on better footing. Admittedly, till date in title suit filed, there is no declaration in favour of the revisionists and as such in this background there is no infirmity whatsoever in dismissing the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2), C.P.C., as they are neither necessary party or proper party. Consequently, present civil revision is dismissed.;