2025:JHHC:27323 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 362 of 2025 Mian Jan Mian, S/o late Gaffoor Mian, R/o Village-Karma Tola-Barkathi, P.O. Karma, P.S.-Mandu, District-Ramgarh, Jharkhand ..... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. Chhatarmandu, P.S. & District- Ramgarh 3. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Ramgarh, P.O.- Chhatarmandu, P.S. & District-Ramgarh 4. Maqbool Mian, S/o Late Rahman, R/o Village-Ratway, P.O.- Karma, P.S.- Mandu, District-Ramgarh 5. Md. Haider Ali, S/o Late Nijamuddin Mian, R/o Village and P.O.- Arrah, P.S.- Mandu, District-Ramgarh … …. Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Nehru Mahto, Advocate Mr. Niraj Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AC to SC-I For the O.P. No.4 : M/s Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate Sunil Kr. Mahto, Kumari Neha & Anjana Rana, Advocate ------ Order No. 06 / Dated : 08.09.2025. 1. All the opposite parties have appeared in this case except opposite party no. 5 against whom the notice has been validly served. Consequently, the hearing against this opposite party no. 5 will proceed ex-parte. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.07.2024 passed in L.R. Case No. 105/2011 whereby and whereunder, the petition for adjudication and payment of 1/3rd share of compensation referred under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been rejected. 3. The land measuring 27.20 acres was a subject matter of Award No. 107 to 133 of L.A. Case No. 03/2005-06. The petitioner claims 1/3rd share of compensation along with his nearest co-sharer in the said suit property and, therefore, had filed a petition for his impleadment in the case for the said share. His petition has been mainly dismissed on the ground that Partition Suit No. 160 of 2015 for the acquired land as well as other properties was pending. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that mere pendency of a partition suit cannot be a ground to refuse adjudication about the share of the petitioner in a land acquisition case. Reliance in this regard is placed on 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7803 (para 36) (Vinod Rajoria Vs. Delhi Development 2025:JHHC:27323 Authority & Ors.) wherein, it has been held that an impleadment application can be filed in a proceeding pending under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The ratio laid down by the Full Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in 2001 SCC OnLine AP 767 (Repaka Bhyravamurthy & Anr. Vs. Muppidi Venkataraju & Ors.) is also to the same effect. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submits that there has not been a formal reference of this petitioner along with opposite parties in land acquisition case as he was neither a party to the award nor his case was referred under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Consequently, his earlier application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was rejected by the Trial Court. The subsequent reference has been made which will be barred in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in (2013) 11 SCC 296 (Ram Prakash Agarwal & Anr. Vs. Gopi Krishan (dead) through LRs & Ors.) wherein, it has been held that direct impleadment of a third party is impermissible. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, the impugned order refusing to adjudicate despite the reference under Section 30 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is indefensible. 7. Pendency of a partition suit cannot as such be a ground to refuse answer to reference for the reason that once a property has been acquired, it cannot be subject matter of partition. Partition suit basically determine the infinitesimal share in joint family property. It involves the disputed share in the form of a preliminary decree and its final division by metes and bounds. If the said property is acquired there cannot be a question of its partition. 8. A partition suit can proceed with respect to other property, but post- acquisition the apportionment of compensation as per the individual share has to be worked out in the land acquisition case initiated under Section 30. It was incumbent upon the learned Trial Court to determine whether the Petitioner had a share in the land acquired, and if so to what share? Under the circumstance impugned order is set aside. Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ -