Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 772 (PNJ)

Mahender v. Phulla and

2000-07-20

V.K.JHANJI

body2000
JUDGMENT V.K. Jhanji, J. - This revision petition is directed against orders dated 27.10.1998 and 7.1.1999. Vide order dated 27.10.1980, petitioners were held to be necessary parties for being impleaded as such in all the 27 references but impleadment was made subject to their filing list of all the proprietors of the village as also the list of the proprietors who have already sold their share. It was also directed that in case petitioners fail to file their affidavits in this regard by the next date of hearing, their application for impleading them as parties to the reference shall be dismissed with costs of Rs. 1000/-. Vide order dated 7.1.1999, learned Additional District Judge on finding affidavits filed by the petitioner to be vague, dismissed the afore- said application. Hence present revision petition. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going though the record, I am of the view that orders, i.e. orders dated 27.10.1998 and 7.1.1999, to the extent it made the impeadment of the petitioners conditional are not sustainable in law. 3. Land in dispute was acquired and for its acquisition, notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were published on 11.6.1982 and 14.1.1983 respectively. Land Acquisition Collector announced award No. 16. on 15.3.1983 and award No. 11 on 8.3.1985. At the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 and announcement of award, the Gram Panchayat was shown as owner in the revenue record. Gram Panchayat feeling aggrieved of the compensation awarded, preferred reference under Sections 18/30 of the Act. While the reference was pending, petitioners alleging themselves to be proprietors of the acquired land, filed application for being impleaded as party to the reference, stating that in the year 1989, ownership of Gram Panchayat was cancelled and mutation was entered in favour of Mustarka Malkan to the extent of 75 per cent of the land and for the remaining 25 per cent, Gram Panchayat was allowed to remain the owner. Petitioners submitted that they being owners to the extent of 75 per cent of the land are necessary parties and, therefore, they be impleaded as such. Gram Panchayat and the persons claiming through Gram Panchayat, contested the application contending that the petitioners cannot be impleaded as parties as they have nothing to do with the acquired land. Petitioners submitted that they being owners to the extent of 75 per cent of the land are necessary parties and, therefore, they be impleaded as such. Gram Panchayat and the persons claiming through Gram Panchayat, contested the application contending that the petitioners cannot be impleaded as parties as they have nothing to do with the acquired land. The learned Additional District Judge held that in order to effectively determine the question of title, petitioners are necessary parties. He, therefore, directed that petitioners be impleaded in all the 27 references. However, their impleadment was made conditional on their submitting list of all the proprietors of the village and also the list of the proprietors who have already sold their share, failing which they were to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/-. On the next date of hearing, affidavits filed by the petitioners were found to be vague and, therefore, their application for being impleaded as parties was dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. In my view, the learned Additional District Judge having held petitioners to be necessary parties was not justified in making their impleadment conditional. In case petitioners are able to prove that they are proprietors of the village and their land was acquired by the State, they would be entitled to compensation. The presence of the petitioners on record thus, is essential for the decision of the reference post passed under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. Mr. Vij, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that the petitioners have now obtained the list of the proprietors and also the details of the proprietors who have sold their share, which they shall file in Court. Be that as it may, orders under revision are set aside to the extent the learned Additional District Judge has made impleadment of the petitioners conditional on their furnishing the list of proprietors of the village and also the ones who have sold their share. In case petitioners wish to file the list as submitted by their counsel, they shall be at liberty to do so. 5. Revision petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. Revision allowed.