Lilawati v. Ravi Khanna — 1964 DIGILAW 357 (ALL)

JUDGMENT D.S. Mathur, J. - This order shall govern Civil Revisions Nos. 716 and 717 of 1963 by Smt. Lilawati and three others, who were impleaded as co-defendants in the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (to be referred hereinafter as the Act) pending before the District Judge of Bijnor, more than, three years after the making of the applications under Section 18 (1) of the Act by Ravi Khanna and Ved Vyas, respectively, for referring the matter for the determination of the Court. that is, District Judge. 2. Both the revisions arise out of the same land acquisition proceedings. After the making of the award under Sec 12 of the Act, Ravi Khanna and Ved Vyas, having not accepted the award, moved applications under Section 18(1) of the Act for reference of the matters in dispute for the determination of the Court. The District Judge of Bijnor took cognizance of the references on receipt of the report of the Collector (Land Acquisition Officer) under Section 19(l) of the Act. The navies of the present applicants were not contained in the report and no notice was originally served upon them. It was after more than three years that the State of Uttar Pradesh moved an application before the District Judge for impleading the present applicants also. The District Judge allowed the application and this order is being challenged in the revisions. It may further be added that Smt. Lilawati and others, applicants, were also not satisfied with the award, and made a separate application under Section 16(1) of the Act for making a reference to the Court. That reference has, I am told, now been amalgamated with the two references made at the instance of Ravi Khanna and Ved Yyas. 3. The only point for consideration is whether a new party can be added to the reference at any stage, all the more, on the expiry of three years. 4. The Land Acquisition Act is a special law and it shall, by virtue of Section 53 of the Act and Section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, override such provisions of the Code which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. It shall, therefore, be desirable to make a reference to the various provisions of the Act as contained in part III thereof. 5. It shall, therefore, be desirable to make a reference to the various provisions of the Act as contained in part III thereof. 5. Section 18(l) of the Act makes a provision for an application in writing by any person interested who has not accepted the award, to be made to the Collector, requiring that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court. Such an application has, as laid down in sub-Sec. (2) of Section 18 of the Act, to state the grounds on which the objection to the award is taken. The proviso to this sub-Section lays down the limitation for making such an application. Section 19 makes a provision for making a reference to the Court. Under sub-Sec, (1) while making the reference the Collector has to state for the information of the Court the particulars detailed in Cls. (a) to (d) thereof. Clause (b) makes it necessary for the Collector to state the names of persons whom he has reason to think are interested in such land. Reading Sections 18 and 19 of the Act together it must be held that it is not necessary for the applicant under Section 18(l) to implead any particular person. He can, if he so likes, make an application merely containing the rounds on which objection to the award is being taken. On receipt of such an application, it shall be for the Collector to give in his report while making the reference to the Court the names of persons whom he thinks are interested in the land acquired. On receipt of the reference the Court has to cause a notice to be served on three sets of persons (vide Section 20 of the Act). The notice has to be served on the applicant; all persons interested in the objection, except such of them as have consented without protest to receive payment of the compensation awarded; and the Collector, if the objection is in regard to the area of the land or to the amount of the compensation. Persons interested in the objection belong to both the groups who are either supporting the objection or opposing it. The present applicants had not consented without protest to receive payment of the compensation awarded and, consequently, it was necessary for the Court to serve notice on them. Persons interested in the objection belong to both the groups who are either supporting the objection or opposing it. The present applicants had not consented without protest to receive payment of the compensation awarded and, consequently, it was necessary for the Court to serve notice on them. When the duty is cast upon the Court to serve notice on all the persons interested in the objection, the notice can be served soon after the receipt of the reference or on the lapse of time after the omission has been brought to its notice. 6. When Section 18 of the Act lays down the limitation for the application, and not for impleading the defendants, the defendants can be impleaded at any stage, all the more, when the duty of ascertaining the names of persons interested is cast upon an authority, not a party to the proceeding, namely, the Collector (Land Acquisition Officer). The present applicants could, therefore, be impleaded in the two references and served with notices even after the expiry of three years. 7. The learned Advocate for the applicants has, however, placed reliance upon a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Mahananda Roy v. Srish Chandra Tewari, VII (1910) Indian Cases 10 and also the provisions of the Limitation Act. My attention was also drawn to the Bombay case in Jankibai Tukaram v. Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur AIR 1960 Bombay 499. 8. In Mahananda Roy v. Srish Chandra Tewari (supra) it was observed that the addition of parties by the Civil Court, who had not been made parties to the reference by the Collector, was wholly inconsistent with the Land Acquisition Act and, therefore, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to snake the respondents a party and they, therefore, had never been it party to the proceeding on the reference and could not obtain any relief in a proceeding consequent upon the reference. It was held that the money wrongly allotted to the respondents shall be given to the appellant, Mahananda Roy. I am with respect in disagreement with some of the observations made in this case. Section 20 of the Act no where lays down that the notice of the reference shall go to persons named in the reference made by the Collector. On the other hand, the notice has to be served on all the persons interested. The Collector gives, to the best of his knowledge. Section 20 of the Act no where lays down that the notice of the reference shall go to persons named in the reference made by the Collector. On the other hand, the notice has to be served on all the persons interested. The Collector gives, to the best of his knowledge. the names of persons interested in the land and under Section 20 the notice has to go to all the persons interested in the objection unless some of them had consented without protest to receive payment of the compensation awarded. If it was necessary for the Collector to give the names of persons interested in the objection after making a judicial inquiry, if necessary, it could be said that for purposes of the reference the defendants were those who were named in the report under Section 19; but when the Collector has to give the names of persons whom he has reason to think are interested in the land, he can easily omit a name or two, and this omission can be made good by the Court while deciding the reference. The Court can take action suo moto or on an application made by a party. I am thus of opinion that the Court can add parties of course, as co-defendants even though not named in the reference by the Collector. 9. However, no party can claim nor get compensation in excess of what was allowed under the award unless he makes an application under Sec, 18 (1) of the Act and the Court gives a judgment in his favour. When Srish Chandra Tewari and others, respondents in the above Calcutta case, did not make any application under Section 18(l) of the Act, they could not be awarded any amount in excess of what might have been allowed to them under the award. In the present revisions we are not concerned with the question of the award of compensation. The propriety of the applicants being impleaded in the references is the only matter in issue. 10. Section 29 of the Limitation Act, then in force, provides that the provisions contained in Sections 4, 9 to 18 and 22 shall apply to suits, appeals or applications under any special or local law only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. 10. Section 29 of the Limitation Act, then in force, provides that the provisions contained in Sections 4, 9 to 18 and 22 shall apply to suits, appeals or applications under any special or local law only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. The Act does not contain any provision for the exclusion of the provisions of Sec 22 in proceedings under the Act. Consequently, Section 22 of the Limitation Act shall apply to proceedings under the Act also, but the application of Section 22 can be of no help to the applicants. 11. Section 22 of the Limitation Act merely lays down that where after the institution of a suit, a new plaintiff or defendant is substituted or added, the suit shall, as regards him, be deemed to have been institute when he was so made a party. When it is open to a party to make an application under Section 18(l) of the Act without impleading any person, late impleadment of a defendant shall be of no consequence, all the more, when no limitation has been prescribed for impleading defendants. The limitation prescribed is invariably for the presentation of a plaint or application containing the names of defendants or opposite parties; but where it is not necessary to give the names of defendants or opposite parties and further action is to be taken by an authority not a party to the proceeding or by the Court, necessary action can be taken at any stage. In other words the proviso to Section 18 (2) of the Act and also Article 181 of the Limitation Act do not lay down the limitation for impleading defendants or for service of notice on them in references under Section 16 of the Act. At this place, it may also be observed that the limitation under Article 181 commences from the date the right to apply accrues. As would appear from Section 18(l) of the Act, it is not necessary for the person interested to apply for service on the defendants, nor is it necessary for him to implead them. Consequently, Article 181 shall be inapplicable on this ground also. 12. As would appear from Section 18(l) of the Act, it is not necessary for the person interested to apply for service on the defendants, nor is it necessary for him to implead them. Consequently, Article 181 shall be inapplicable on this ground also. 12. For reasons given above, it must be held that the District Judge had the power to implead the applicants in the two references at a late stage on an application being made by the State of Uttar Pradesh and when he decided to implead them (applicants), he cannot be said to have committed any irregularity which would justify interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 13. Both the revisions are hereby dismissed. Costs on parties. The stay orders are vacated.