Allahabad High Court
Damodar Shamsher Jang Bahadur ... vs State Of U.P. & Another on 2 September, 2014
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?AFR
Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46495 of 2014
Petitioner :- Damodar Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- K.S. Shukla,K.K. Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Sharma,T.N. Tiwari
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard Sri K.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
This petition has been filed by the same person through his power of attorney holder praying for deciding his own application dated 18.10.2012 under section 18/30 of the 1894 Act.
The petitioner had sought impleadment in the proceedings of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 initiated at the behest of the Caveator represented by Sri Anil Sharma. The said impleadment application on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected by the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Varanasi who is hearing the reference on 10.3.2014 against which the petitioner has filed Civil Revision No. 1071 of 2014 before this Court.
Sri Sharma has opposed this petition also on the ground that the petitioner is a rank stranger and his name was not recorded and as such the prayer made in the application and in this petition is not maintainable.
Sri Sharma further states that the petitioner is neither a proper party nor his application under Order I Rule 10 was maintainable and in the background of fact that the petitioner is stranger, such application should not be entertained by the Collector nor any reference should be made for the purpose of decision of such application. He, however, submits that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit at this stage and the matter be decided finally upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties. We have also heard the learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner in this petition has come up before this Court with a request that his application dated 18.10.2012 for making reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 30 of the Act should be decided by the concerned court within specified period of time.
The purpose for moving such an application is to decide the claim as envisaged under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which is extracted herein:
18. Reference to Court. (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:
Provided that every such application shall be made,-
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.
The question is as to whether the claim of the petitioner is within the precincts of Section 18 or not and whether he is an aggrieved person and entitled to such relief or not inasmuch as the contest by Sri Sharma is to the status of the petitioner to contest these proceedings who according to him is a non entity.
The issue as to whether the petitioner is a person as envisaged under Section 18 or not, therefore, in our opinion, will have to be determined by the court concerned itself. Such determination, therefore, cannot be pre-empted at this stage when the application admittedly is still pending and has not been disposed of as yet.
We, therefore, do not propose to enter into the merits of the opposition to this application or adjudicate the status of the petitioner which has to be heard by the court concerned. Consequently, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the competent court to hear the reference and to dispose of the said application dated 18.10.2012 which shall be forwarded by the Collector for disposal within two months after hearing the caveator or any other aggrieved person.
The writ petition stands disposed of with the said directions.
Order Date :- 2.9.2014
Puspendra
