ORDER
M.P. Varma, J.
1. The moot question raised in this revision is whether Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil P.C. (for brevity as the Code) is applicable in a case under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. The facts of the case virtually are not in dispute. The land of plot No. 134 of village Tisiauta, P.S. Patepur in the district of Vaishali has been acquired for the purpose of excavation of canal in the village by the State of Bihar. The award for payment of compensation was prepared in the name of opposite party No. 1 Fakira Mehtar. Since he made an objection to the amount of compensation awarded, the learned Collector under Section 18 of the Act made a reference for decision to the Land Acquisition Judge. The petitioners filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code for intervening in the aforesaid
reference proceeding before the Land Acquisition Judge on the plea that the petitioners are the co-sharers of the joint family properties which have been acquired by the State of Bihar. The learned Judge by his order dated 22-5-1979 rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the plea that the provisions with regard to the addition of parties are not applicable in a reference proceedings under the Act and as such the Court was not competent to add the petitioners as party to the proceeding. The aforesaid order is under challenge in this application.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Braj Kishore Narain has submitted that the petitioners are the co-sharers and are the persons interested in the land which has been acquired. The petitioners being co-sharers claimed share in the compensation money. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that it was an error on the part of the court below to hold that Order 1, Rule 10 is not applicable under the Act.
4. Section 53 of the Act lays down that the provisions of the Code shall apply to all land acquisition proceedings before a court in so far as they may not be inconsistent with anything contained in the Act itself. Section 53 reads as follows :
“Civil P. C. to apply to proceedings before the courts-save in so far as they may be inconsistent………. under this Act.”
From the provisions as aforesaid, it is quite appropriate that Land Acquisition Judge has power to add a person as a party to a proceeding, if it appears to the court to be just to do so and more particularly if the court finds that presence of such a person may be necessary in order to adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the case.
5. Mrs. Indu appearing for the opposite party, while supporting the impugned order of the learned Judge has seriously controverted the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner. She has submitted that the petitioners have given a wrong geneology in para 2 of the application. In other words learned Counsel has contended that the petitioners are falsely claiming to be the co-sharers of the joint family and in this view of the matter, the petitioners cannot be deemed genuinely interested persons in the proceeding
as under Clause (b) of Section 3 of the said Act. Learned Counsel therefore, submits that the petitioners have no claim for apportionment of the amount awarded and they cannot be added as a party to the proceeding at this stage.
6. I may mention here that the learned Advocate for the opposite party Mrs. Indu, in fact, does not dispute the proposition of law with regard to the applicability of Order 1,Rule 10 under the Land Acquisition proceedings. She is disputing the very proposition that the petitioners are not the ‘persons interested’ in the proceeding and therefore, cannot be added as a party.
The expression ‘person interested’ has been defined in Clause (b) of Section 3 which is as under :
“person interested includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under the Act.”
No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party, but nonetheless, I have taken notice of the argument advanced on behalf of the opposite party. It cannot be disputed and the Counsel for the petitioners Sri Narain very fairly does not ask this Court, sitting in revision to take evidence to decide the geneological table and to hold whether the petitioners come under the category of ‘persons interested’ as defined under Clause (b) of Section 3 of the Act.
7. Be that as it may, the claim has been made that they are the co-sharers. Section 30 of the Act prescribes that when the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11 and if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof or as to the person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute also for the decision of the court. Since no other provision has been prescribed for reference in case of dispute for the apportionment of amount of compensation, except is laid down under Section 30 of the Act, naturally the aid of the provisions of the Civil P. C. has to be taken in that respect too. I do not find anything in the Act which might be deemed to be inconsistent with the application of Order 1,Rule 10 of the Civil P. C in regard to the reference under Section 30 of the Act if a dispute has been raised relating to apportionment of the awarded amount or any part thereof and as to the person to whom the same is to be paid
8. Thus, in my view it appears that the provisions of the Civil P.C. are applicable in the proceeding under the Act, in reference to Court as well as made either under Section 18 or under Section 30 of the Act.
9. Therefore, it must be held that the court may at any stage of the proceeding, either upon or without the application of either party and on such terms that might be just, and who ought to have been joined or whose presence before the court might be necessary in order to enable to adjudicate upon all questions involved in the proceeding add him as a party.
10. However, since a dispute has been raised whether the petitioners are co-sharers, the court below will decide the same and on being satisfied that they are the persons interested in, the proceeding, as referred to above, will pass orders according to law.
11. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the rule is made absolute in the present case with a direction that the court may add the petitioners as a party to the proceeding, if it feels satisfied in the circumstances of the case to be added as such for proper and full adjudication of the disputes involved in the proceedings.