ORDER : SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J. 1. By this application, the applicants, have prayed for being impleaded as respondent nos.2 to 12 in the captioned first appeal. 2. At the outset, Mr. Nirad D. Buch, learned advocate upon instructions, states that he would not press following prayer clause 6(C) with a liberty to approach the Collector as per the provisions of Section 30 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1894’). (C) “Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this application, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Original Respondents herein to deposit Rs.2,30,36,918 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum before the learned Principal Civil Judge, Bharuch in accordance with their undertaking dated 18.01.2025 (ANNEXURE.K).” 3. The prayer clause 6(C), is not pressed with a liberty to the applicants, to approach the competent authority as permissible and in accordance with law. 4. Mr. Nirad D. Buch, learned advocate, while taking this Court to the documents placed on the record, submitted that Section 4 notification, was issued somewhere in the month of December, 2010 with respect to land bearing survey no.426. The total land was around 29,138 sq. mts. As per the survey, the land, was divided into two parts, namely 426/paiki/1 admeasuring 12,546 sq. mts. and 426/paiki/2 admeasuring 16,592 sq. mts. It is submitted that the total land acquired as per Section 4 notification, was to an extent of 5,005 sq. mts. It is submitted that the land plan schedule, though mentions both the survey numbers, namely 426/paiki/1 and 426/paiki/2, the area of only survey no.426/paiki/2, has been mentioned, while area against the land bearing survey no.426/paiki/1, is left nil. However, it is not in dispute that the total land acquired for survey no.426, was 5,005 sq. mts. of land, which pertains to both the survey nos.426/paiki/1 and 426/paiki/2. 4.1 It is further submitted that it was the bounden duty of the authorities, to have initiated two separate proceedings for both the parcels of land, namely survey no.426/paiki/1 and 426/paiki/2 admeasuring 2,581.48 sq. mts. and 2,423.52 sq. mts. respectively. The 7/12 forms, are separate with respect to both the survey numbers, namely 426/paiki/1 and 426/paiki/2 and therefore, there was no reason available to the respondent authorities, to have consolidated both the survey numbers and conducted the proceedings in common. mts. and 2,423.52 sq. mts. respectively. The 7/12 forms, are separate with respect to both the survey numbers, namely 426/paiki/1 and 426/paiki/2 and therefore, there was no reason available to the respondent authorities, to have consolidated both the survey numbers and conducted the proceedings in common. 4.2 It is further submitted that Section 4 notification, was followed by Section 6 notification(page no.24) and at page no.33, the schedule of the land intended to be acquired, is mentioned wherein, against the survey no.426, the approximate area of the land acquired, has been mentioned to the extent of 5,005 sq. mts. Even the notices issued under Section 9, is with respect to survey no.426 admeasuring 5,005 sq. mts. indicating the names of both the owners, namely, Ahmed Abhram Vali and Saieed Ahmed Ibrahim. Even the notice for hearing, which was issued, was in the name of both the claimants and was duly signed. It is further submitted that Section 11 award, was passed by the land acquisition officer, qua 5,005 sq. mts. Even the reference is filed by the claimants with respect to 5,005 sq. mts. of survey no.426. It is further submitted that it appears that on the basis of the consent letter given by the applicants and power of attorney of applicant no.12, that the original claimant received the amount of the compensation. It is submitted that the reference, was filed in respect of whole of the land of survey no.426 admeasuring 5,005 sq. mts. which is clear from paragraph 3 of the judgment wherein, the area mentioned is 5,005 sq. mts. with respect to survey no.426. Therefore, it is not the case that the steps were not taken in respect of land bearing survey no.426 for whole and that it was restricted only to 2,423.52 sq. mts. It is submitted that considering the fact that all throughout in the proceedings, the land involved, is survey no.426 admeasuring 5,005 sq. mts., the applicants, be allowed to be joined as the respondents in the appeal filed by the State Government. 5. Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has fairly stated before this Court that there is some lacunae in the proceedings; however, the amount was allowed to be withdrawn only because of the consent letter given by the applicants and their ancestors. 5. Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has fairly stated before this Court that there is some lacunae in the proceedings; however, the amount was allowed to be withdrawn only because of the consent letter given by the applicants and their ancestors. It is not that the applicants were not aware, in fact, the notices were issued to the applicants and have been duly signed. The statement is also recorded, but owing to family arrangement or on the understanding between the applicants on one hand and the private respondent on the other, that the common proceedings were initiated in respect of survey no.426. It is submitted that since the applicants appear to be the owner of the land bearing survey no.426/paiki/1 admeasuring 12,546 sq. mts. and the private respondent being owner of survey no.426/paiki/2 admeasuring 16,592 sq. mts., if there are any disputes as regards the apportionment, the applicants, may be relegated to take out the proceedings before the Collector. 6. Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned advocate appearing for the private respondent, has opposed the captioned application on the ground that the impleadment application, would not be maintainable in view of the well settled position. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Ambey Devi Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in (1996) 9 SCC 84 . It has been held and observed that the procedure prescribed under Sections 18 and 30 is inconsistent with the procedure prescribed under Order I Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Order I Rule 10, 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, which question, does not arise since inconsistent procedure has been prescribed under the Act. 7. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Muthavalli Of Sha Madhari Diwan Wakf, S.J. Syed Zakrudeen & Anr. Vs. Syed Zindasha & Ors., reported in (2009) 12 SCC 280 . It is submitted that the Apex Court, has held and observed that impleadment of a necessary party would not be permissible in the event there is a dispute with regard to the title or apportionment of the amount of compensation. Vs. Syed Zindasha & Ors., reported in (2009) 12 SCC 280 . It is submitted that the Apex Court, has held and observed that impleadment of a necessary party would not be permissible in the event there is a dispute with regard to the title or apportionment of the amount of compensation. A proper reference has to be made and only then the dispute between the claimants can be gone into and not in a reference proceedings. It is therefore submitted that if at all the applicants, have any grievance, they can very well approach the learned Collector and raise the grievance as regards the apportionment; however, they cannot be allowed to be joined in the captioned proceedings. 8. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 9. The application is filed by the applicants for being joined as party respondents. Prior to the issuance of Section 4 notification, survey appears to have been carried out seeking information. In two separate 7/12 forms, the land undisputedly, was and is shown in the name of Ahmed Abhram Vali with respect to survey no.426/paiki/1 admeasuring 12546 sq. mts. and Saieed Ahmed Ibrahim with respect to survey no.426/paiki/2 admeasuring 16,592 sq. mts. Discernibly, Section 4 notification, was issued for acquiring the land for the public purpose of widening and strengthening Dyadara-Kuvadar-Nabipur road connecting to the Special Economic Zone. Section 4 notification, was with respect to survey no.426 and the land proposed to be acquired, was 5,005 sq. mts. out of total land of 29,138 sq. mts. As per the land plan schedule(page no.16), the land, has been shown to be bifurcated into two parts, namely survey nos.426/paiki/1 and 426/paiki/2 and the lands proposed to be acquired, were of 2,581.48 sq. mts. and 2,423.52 sq. mts., respectively; however, so far as the land bearing survey no.426/paiki/1 is concerned, the area is not mentioned while for survey no.426/paiki/2, the area mentioned is 2,423.52 sq. mts. 10. Section 4 notification was followed by Section 6 notification further followed by Section 11 award by the Land Acquisition Officer dated 05.08.2013, reflecting the acquisition of the land admeasuring 5,005 sq. mts. of land bearing survey no.426. It appears that at the time of Section 11 award, mistakenly, bifurcation was not taken into account and the award was passed with respect to the total land acquired namely 5,005 sq. mts. of survey no.426. mts. of land bearing survey no.426. It appears that at the time of Section 11 award, mistakenly, bifurcation was not taken into account and the award was passed with respect to the total land acquired namely 5,005 sq. mts. of survey no.426. The applicants, appear to have executed a power of attorney and consent letter giving authority to Saieed Ahmed Ibrahim to take steps with respect to the acquisition proceedings before the Government and the Semi-Government Authorities. Authority, was also given to receive the payments, cheques etc. On the basis thereof, the payment of compensation was received by Saieed Ahmed Ibrahim. 11. It is not in dispute that Land Acquisition Reference Case No.17/2016, has been filed by Saieed Ahmed Ibrahim with respect to whole of survey no.426 admeasuring 5,005 sq. mts. Paragraph 3 of the judgment, reads thus:- (3) “The claimants submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bharuch has acquired the following lands situated in Mauje Derol, Tal. & Dist. Bharuch, for the purpose of widening & strengthening Dyadara-Kuvadar-Nabipur road connecting road ‘Sez’.” Sr. No. L.A.R. Nos. of 2016 Survey/Block Nos. Area H-Are- sq.mtrs 1 11 327 paikee 327 paikee 00-03-57 00-29-00 2 12 326 00-04-25 3 13 380 00-11-90 4 14 411 00-13-88 5 15 416 00-58-22 6 16 425 00-46-00 7 17 426 00-50-05 8 18 427 00-48-15 9 19 429 00-11-25 10 20 434 00-12-75 11 21 413 407 00-44-90 00-59-92 12 22 432 00-21-00 13 23 430 00-06-58 14 24 433/A 433/B 00-02-75 00-11-55 15 25 441 00-09-00 16 26 438 00-02-00 17 27 436 00-11-40 18 28 412 00-21-84 12. It is not the case of the respondents-original claimants that the total land admeasuring 5,005 sq. mts. belongs to them. Rather it is admitted that the Saieed Ahmed Ibrahim is concerned only with land admeasuring 2423.52 sq. mts. of survey no.426/paiki/2 of which aspect, is fairly conceded by Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned advocate appearing for the private respondent. Therefore, the award, has been passed in respect of whole of survey no.426 without any further bifurcation for the land measuring 5,005 sq. mts. i.e. 2,423.52 sq. mts. of the respondent and 2,581.48 sq. mts. of the applicants. 13. Pertinently, though the applicants, have not preferred the reference application but the fact remains, that the reference application covers the whole of the land of 5,005 sq. mts. of survey no.426. mts. i.e. 2,423.52 sq. mts. of the respondent and 2,581.48 sq. mts. of the applicants. 13. Pertinently, though the applicants, have not preferred the reference application but the fact remains, that the reference application covers the whole of the land of 5,005 sq. mts. of survey no.426. Therefore, it would not be correct to construe the present application, for impleadment. In light of the above discussion, the applicants, are very much entitled to continue the proceedings against the judgment rendered in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.17/2016, as much as, the record suggests that survey no.426/paiki/1, admeasuring 12,546 sq. mts belongs to the applicants. while remaining land of survey no.426/paiki/2, belongs to Saieed Ahmed Ibrahim admeasuring 16,592 sq. mts. 14. In view of the above, there is not an iota of doubt that the applicants, are not entitled to join the proceedings more particularly, when Section 4 notification, Section 6 notification as well as notices under Section 9, were issued to the applicants. It is not in dispute that applicants, were very much party to the proceeding. It is also not in dispute that the Land Acquisition Reference Case No.17/2016, was restricted to 2,423.52 sq. mts. of the share of the owner-Saieed Ahmed Ibrahim of survey no.426/paiki/2. In fact, it was for whole of 5005 sq. mts. Therefore, to suggest that it would not be permissible for the applicants, to continue the proceedings, would not be proper and against the record. 15. So far as the judgment cited in the case of Ambey Devi Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (supra) is concerned, it would not apply to the facts of the case inasmuch as, the claim, of the appellant therein, was for her 1/4 th share, which was made before the Land Acquisition Officer. The Collector, has made the award and the compensation was apportioned into 1/4 th share to each of the co-owners. The co-owners, preferred the reference application while the appellant, did not. Thereafter, being aggrieved the appellant therein, sought an application for being joined as a party respondent in the proceedings before the High Court. In absence of any application under Section 18, the Apex Court, held that it would be impermissible for the appellant therein, for being joined as a party respondent. The facts in the present case, are slightly on a different footing. In absence of any application under Section 18, the Apex Court, held that it would be impermissible for the appellant therein, for being joined as a party respondent. The facts in the present case, are slightly on a different footing. In the present case, though the appellants/applicants, have not preferred any reference but their land bearing survey no.426/paiki/1 is involved, in the land acquisition proceeding. 16. Similarly, in the case of Muthavalli Of Sha Madhari Diwan Wakf, S.J. Syed Zakrudeen & Anr. Vs. Syed Zindasha & Ors. (supra), in paragraph 11, the Apex Court, has noted that the Act of 1894, is a self- contained code and not only provides for mode and manner in which the acquisition proceedings are initiated but also, the mode and manner in which the proceedings for making an award as also the mode and manner in which an application for reference by a person dissatisfied therewith is to be made. Filing of a reference application is must in respect of the amount of compensation and in absence of any reference, made in regard to the right of persons to whom it was payable or apportionment of the compensation. The issue in the present case, is in contrast to the issue before the Apex Court. The record reveals that the applicants, are very much the owner of the land except the consent letter and the power of attorney given in favour of Saieed Ahmed Ibrahim. That by itself, will not disentitle the applicants, to pursue the captioned appeal with respect to the survey no.426/paiki/1 for the land admeasuring 2,581.48 sq. mts. In view of the above, the principle laid down would not apply to the facts of the present case. 17. In light of the above discussion, the applicants, are allowed to be joined in the captioned appeal. Civil Application succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Necessary amendment, to be carried out within a period of two weeks from today. Rule is made absolute. No order as to cost. 18. Needless to clarify that so far as the apportionment is concerned, it would be open to the applicants to take out the steps in accordance with law before the Collector.