SHYAMALI DAS versus ILLA CHOWDHRY AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 310 · Decided: 01-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHYAMALI DAS 
v. 
ILLA CHOWDHRY AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER I, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, I 908: 
Order I Rule IO-Impleadment application rejected by Reference Court 
C on the ground that applicant was not person interested-Order not challenged, 
hence attained finality-Subsequent application for impleadment-
Maintainability of-Held, not maintainable-Land Acquisition Act, I894-s.3 
(b) 
D 
Land Acquisition Act, I 894: 
s. I 8-Jurisdiction of Reference Court-Scope and ambit of-Discussed 
Interim order: 
Interim order cannot be passed in favour of a person who is not party 
E to the litigation. 
The land in question was in the name of Respondent No.I. It was 
acquired and its possession was taken. Land Acquisition Collector passed 
an award. Respondent no.I was dissatisfied with the award and sought 
F 
reference under s.18 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894. 
Appellant filed a suit for mandatory injunction restraining payment 
of award to respondents and declaration that she was rightful owner of 
land. The suit was still pending. Although an award had been made, 
appellant filed two applications objecting to the acquisition of land before 
G Collector. She also filed application for her impleadment in reference 
proceedings which was dismissed by Land Acquisition Judge on 22.6.2004 
on (he ground that she was not person interested under s.3(b). This order 
was not challenged and hence attained finality. Writ Petition _filed by 
appellant before High Court was dismissed as not maintainable, with grant 
H 
310 
, 
.... 
SHYAMALI DAS v. ILLA CHOWDHRY 
311 
of liberty to appellant to apply before Collector under s.30 r/w. s.31. A 
· However, she did not file any application. Her application before the 
revenue authorities succeeded in 2005. The operation of the said order was 
stayed by the High Court. Relying on the basis of the said purported 
subsequent event, another application was filed by the appellant for her 
impleadment in the reference proceeding. 
The reference cases were allowed by Land Acquisition Judge. 
Appellant challenged the same whereby payment W8S directed to be kept 
in abeyance. Respondent No.1 moved an application for vacating the stay, 
which was dismissed. Thereafter she successfully filed application untler 
B 
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence the present appeal. 
C 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court. 
HELD: 1.1. The Land Acquisition Act is a complete code by itself. 
It provides for remedies not only to those whose lands have been acquired 
but also those who claim the awarded amount or any apportionmt:nt D 
thereof. A Land Acquisition Judge derives its jurisdiction from the on~er 
of reference. It is bound thereby. Its jurisdiction is to determine adequa,cy 
or otherwise of the amount of compensation paid under the award ma~e 
by the Collector. It is not within its domain to entertain any applicati9n 
of pro intersse suo or in the nature thereof. (316-E) 
1.2. The Reference Judge, therefore, was entirely correct in passing 
its order dated 22.6.2004. A finding of fact was arrived at therein that 
the appellant was not a party interested in the proceeding witftin the 
meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act. The said order atta_ined finality. It could 
E 
not have, thus, been reopened. Another application for impleadment, 
therefore, was not mai_ntainable. It may be true that in the proceeding of F 
a suit, the court can in a changed situation entertain a second application 
under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. But, the 
Reference Judge having opined, while passing its order dated 26.2.2004, 
that the appellant was not a person interested, a second application despite 
the subsequent event was not maintainable. [316-F-H) 
G 
2. A disputant is entitled to an interim order, provided he is a parfy 
thereto. If for one reason or the other, he cannot be impleaded as a party 
to the proceeding the Court would have no jurisdiction to pass any interim 
order in his favour. [318-A] 
H 
312 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A 
3.1. The proceeding under ss.30 and 31 of the Act was maintainable 
at the instance of the appellant. She was given an opportunity to file the 
same. She did not avail the said opportunity. Having not availed the 
opportunity, she was not entitled to be impleaded as a party. [317-A] 
Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar and Anr., [2003) 3 SCC 128; Prayag 
B Upnivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. A

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.