High Court Jharkhand High Court

Md.Illias vs Naiyer Ekbal & Ors on 10 February, 2010

Jharkhand High Court
Md.Illias vs Naiyer Ekbal & Ors on 10 February, 2010
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 W. P. (C) No. 500 of 2009
                             ---
           Md. Illias                      ... ...  Petitioner
                                   Versus
           Naiyar Ekbal and others              ...     ...      Respondents
                             ---
           CORAM        : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R. K. MERATHIA
                              ---
           For the Petitioner     : Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, Advocate
           For the Respondents    : M/s. M. K. Laik, Senior Advocate &
                                         Smita Mitra, Advocate
                              ---

5. 10.02.2010

: 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.

-2-

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. 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.

(R. K. Merathia, J.)

R. Shekhar Cp 2