Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 226 (JHR)

Md. Illias v. Naiyar Ekbal

2010-02-10

R.K.MERATHIA

body2010
Judgment This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 4.9.2008 passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in L. A. Reference Case No. 10 of 1999 allowing the prayer of respondents under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. and adding them party in the proceeding. Mr. D. K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Land Acquisition Act is a complete Code and C.P.C. is not applicable; and that the respondents are not the interested persons, and therefore, they should not have been impleaded as party. He further submitted that at best the respondents could take recourse to Section 30 for seeking reference. He relied on the case of Gorakhpur Development Authority, Gorakhpur Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur and others reported in AIR 1991 Allahabad 241 and Shyamali Das Vs. ILLA Chowdhry and others reported in (2006) 12 SCC 300 . Mr. Laik, learned senior counsel on the other hand supported the impugned order and submitted that learned Judge was prima facie satisfied that the respondents should be impleaded as party. Referring to Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, he submitted that provisions of C.P.C. are applicable save so far as not inconsistent with Land Acquisition Act. He further submitted that Order I Rule 10 can be invoked and if the court is satisfied that they are interested persons, they can be added as parties, at the stage of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and not at the stage of Section 30. He distinguished the judgments cited by Mr. Prasad, and relied on the judgment in the case of Bagh Singh and others Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar and another reported in AIR 1984 Punjab and Haryana 177. The judgment of Gorakhpur Development Authority (supra) is not applicable in the present case as in that case the beneficiaries for whose benefit the land was sought to be acquired wanted to be impleaded as party and in that context, it was said that such application could not be made, in a proceeding under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The judgment of Shyamali Das (supra) is also not applicable in the present case. The judgment of Shyamali Das (supra) is also not applicable in the present case. It will appear from paragraph 20 of the said case that the application earlier made for impleading the party was rejected holding that such party was not interested party, and that order having become final, another application for impleadment of party could not be made; and moreover, it further appears that an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. can be filed in a proceeding under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned court below, after considering the respective cases of the parties, was prima-facie satisfied that the respondent should be added as a party in this proceeding. The submission of Mr. Prasad that respondent could make an application for reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is wholly misconceived. In the circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of my supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondents are directed to file their show-cause, if not already filed, within one month from today. They are further directed to conclude their evidence within two months thereafter. If no show-cause is filed and evidence is not concluded within such time the case of the respondents will be closed. The parties are directed to cooperate in early disposal of the matter before the Land Acquisition Judge, who will try to dispose of the proceeding expeditiously. This order is subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/-by the respondents to the petitioner, within four weeks from today. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.