CR-5611-2019 128 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Manoj Kumar State of Haryana and ors. CORAM: Present:- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) to an order dated Court-cum-learned Additional District Judge, application preferred under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC at the instance of petitioner being “ out of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, stood declined. 2. the land comprised in 12), 20 min West (6 No. 6/2/1 min. West (1 7, total measuring 30 Kanal 9 Marla to the extent of 10/108 share situated within the revenue estate of Village Patli H 2019(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5611-20 Date of Decision: Manoj Kumar Versus State of Haryana and ors. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present revision petition challenge has been laid to an order dated 13.08.2019 (P-5) passed learned Additional District Judge, application preferred under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC at the instance of petitioner being “person interested”, in the pending proceedings arising out of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, declined. Briefly stating, the petitioner happened to be co the land comprised in Rectangle No. 135, Killa No. 11 min West (5 0 min West (6-6), 21 min West (6 No. 6/2/1 min. West (1-11), 15/2 (3-8), 16/1(3 7, total measuring 30 Kanal 9 Marla to the extent of 10/108 share situated within the revenue estate of Village Patli H IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2019(O&M) Date of Decision: 10.09.2025 ........ Petitioner ......... Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate for respondent No.3. By way of present revision petition challenge has been laid 5) passed by the learned Reference learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram; whereby an application preferred under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC at the instance of in the pending proceedings arising out of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Briefly stating, the petitioner happened to be co-sharer in Rectangle No. 135, Killa No. 11 min West (5 6), 21 min West (6-18), Rectangle No. 136, Killa 8), 16/1(3-8), 25/2(3-6), total Kitta 7, total measuring 30 Kanal 9 Marla to the extent of 10/108 share situated within the revenue estate of Village Patli Hazipur, Tehsil By way of present revision petition challenge has been laid the learned Reference Gurugram; whereby an application preferred under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC at the instance of in the pending proceedings arising out of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, sharer in Rectangle No. 135, Killa No. 11 min West (5- 18), Rectangle No. 136, Killa 6), total Kitta 7, total measuring 30 Kanal 9 Marla to the extent of 10/108 share azipur, Tehsil- SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.15 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5611-2019 Farukhnagar, District acquired vide notifications dated 11.12.2007 and 17.04.2008 issued under Sections 4 and 6 1894, for short ‘the Act’. setting up of Toll Plaza connecting National Highways 12, 8 and 10. The award under Section 11 of the Act was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector, (for short ‘the LAC’) on 24.12.2008. Some of the co-sharers of the petition Act which was decided on 25.03.2013. Aggrieved thereof, Regular First Appeals were filed before this Court which were 20.03.2018, whereby the decision of the Reference Court was set aside and the 3. under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for seeking his impleadment as applicant while claiming himself to be a co-sharer and beneficiary 4. the instance of respondent HSIIDC. The learned Reference Court vide order dated 13.08.2019 rejected the application for Hence the present revision. 5. 5), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicant being co-sharer in the joint land comprised in 11 min West (5 No. 136, Killa No. 6/2/1 min. West (1 6), total Kitta 7, total measuring 30 Kanal 9 Marla to the extent of 2019(O&M) [2] Farukhnagar, District-Gurugram. Some part thereof came to be acquired vide notifications dated 11.12.2007 and 17.04.2008 issued under Sections 4 and 6, respectively, 1894, for short ‘the Act’. The public purpose setting up of Toll Plaza connecting National Highways 12, 8 and 10. The award under Section 11 of the Act was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector, (for short ‘the LAC’) on 24.12.2008. Some of the sharers of the petitioner sought reference Under Section 18 of the Act which was decided on 25.03.2013. Aggrieved thereof, Regular First Appeals were filed before this Court which were 20.03.2018, whereby the decision of the Reference Court was set aside and the matter was remanded back for its fresh adjudication. It was at this stage, the petitioner moved an application Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the petition under Section 18 of the Act seeking his impleadment as applicant while claiming himself to be a sharer and beneficiary of the acquired land. The prayer made in the said application was opposed at the instance of respondent HSIIDC. The learned Reference Court vide order dated 13.08.2019 rejected the application for e present revision. Impugning the aforementioned order dated 13.08.2019 (P 5), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicant being sharer in the joint land comprised in 11 min West (5-12), 20 min West (6-6), 21 min West (6 No. 136, Killa No. 6/2/1 min. West (1-11), 15/2 (3 6), total Kitta 7, total measuring 30 Kanal 9 Marla to the extent of . Some part thereof came to be acquired vide notifications dated 11.12.2007 and 17.04.2008 issued , respectively, of the Land Acquisition Act, The public purpose of acquisition was for setting up of Toll Plaza connecting National Highways 12, 8 and 10. The award under Section 11 of the Act was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector, (for short ‘the LAC’) on 24.12.2008. Some of the er sought reference Under Section 18 of the Act which was decided on 25.03.2013. Aggrieved thereof, Regular First Appeals were filed before this Court which were disposed of on 20.03.2018, whereby the decision of the Reference Court was set matter was remanded back for its fresh adjudication. It was at this stage, the petitioner moved an application in the petition under Section 18 of the Act seeking his impleadment as applicant while claiming himself to be a of the acquired land. The prayer made in the said application was opposed at the instance of respondent HSIIDC. The learned Reference Court vide order dated 13.08.2019 rejected the application for his impleadment. Impugning the aforementioned order dated 13.08.2019 (P 5), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicant being sharer in the joint land comprised in Rectangle No. 135, Killa No. 6), 21 min West (6-18), Rectangle 11), 15/2 (3-8), 16/1(3-8), 25/2(3 6), total Kitta 7, total measuring 30 Kanal 9 Marla to the extent of . Some part thereof came to be acquired vide notifications dated 11.12.2007 and 17.04.2008 issued of the Land Acquisition Act, of acquisition was for setting up of Toll Plaza connecting National Highways 12, 8 and 10. The award under Section 11 of the Act was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector, (for short ‘the LAC’) on 24.12.2008. Some of the er sought reference Under Section 18 of the Act which was decided on 25.03.2013. Aggrieved thereof, Regular on 20.03.2018, whereby the decision of the Reference Court was set It was at this stage, the petitioner moved an application in the petition under Section 18 of the Act seeking his impleadment as applicant while claiming himself to be a The prayer made in the said application was opposed at the instance of respondent HSIIDC. The learned Reference Court vide impleadment. Impugning the aforementioned order dated 13.08.2019 (P- 5), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicant being Rectangle No. 135, Killa No. 18), Rectangle 8), 25/2(3- 6), total Kitta 7, total measuring 30 Kanal 9 Marla to the extent of SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.15 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5611-2019 10/108 share situated within the revenue estate of village Patli Hazipur, Tehsi beneficiary against the acquired land, was a necessary party and thus his prayer for impleadment was required to be allowed so as to permit him to pursue his rights towards grant of similar compensation as was to be assed in favour of his other co places reliance submit that the petitioner being required to be served upon notice by the learned however, the same being not effected instance of petitioner/ “ Reference Court could not have declined his impleadment. In support of his aforesaid contention, learned reliance upon the judgment Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Collector and another as AIR 1984 (Punjab) 177 extracted hereunder: 2019(O&M) [3] 10/108 share situated within the revenue estate of village Patli Hazipur, Tehsil- Farukhnagar, District beneficiary against the acquired land, was a necessary party and thus his prayer for impleadment was required to be allowed so as to permit him to pursue his rights towards grant of similar compensation as was to be assed in favour of his other co-sharers. In support, he also places reliance upon Section 3 (b) read with Section 20(b) of the Act to submit that the petitioner being “person interested required to be served upon notice by the learned however, the same being not effected; on an application moved at the instance of petitioner/ “person interested Reference Court could not have declined his impleadment. In support of his aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Collector and another AIR 1984 (Punjab) 177 and para 4 thereof being relevant, is extracted hereunder:- “4. So far as the other aspect of the matter that in the absence of any specific provision in the Act, the petitioners cannot be added as parties to the References pending before the lower Court is concerned, the same though hardly arises in the instant case in the light of the above conclusion of mine yet I find that the lower Court appears to be completely oblivious of the provision of Section 53 of the Act and also some of the pronouncements of this Court wherein it has been held that an application un 18 of the Act is to be equated with a suit, an applicant with a plaintiff and an award with a 10/108 share situated within the revenue estate of village Patli Farukhnagar, District-Gurugram, as well as beneficiary against the acquired land, was a necessary party and thus his prayer for impleadment was required to be allowed so as to permit him to pursue his rights towards grant of similar compensation as was sharers. In support, he also upon Section 3 (b) read with Section 20(b) of the Act to person interested” though was required to be served upon notice by the learned Reference Court, on an application moved at the person interested” himself, the learned Reference Court could not have declined his impleadment. In support counsel for the petitioner places of this Court in Bhag Singh and others Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Collector and another, reported and para 4 thereof being relevant, is So far as the other aspect of the matter that in the absence of any specific provision in the Act, the petitioners cannot be added as parties to the References pending before the lower Court is concerned, the same though hardly arises in the n the light of the above-noted conclusion of mine yet I find that the lower Court appears to be completely oblivious of the provision of Section 53 of the Act and also some of the pronouncements of this Court wherein it has been held that an application under Section 18 of the Act is to be equated with a suit, an applicant with a plaintiff and an award with a 10/108 share situated within the revenue estate of village Patli m, as well as beneficiary against the acquired land, was a necessary party and thus his prayer for impleadment was required to be allowed so as to permit him to pursue his rights towards grant of similar compensation as was sharers. In support, he also upon Section 3 (b) read with Section 20(b) of the Act to ” though was Reference Court, on an application moved at the ” himself, the learned Reference Court could not have declined his impleadment. In support counsel for the petitioner places Bhag Singh and others , reported and para 4 thereof being relevant, is So far as the other aspect of the matter that in the absence of any specific provision in the Act, the petitioners cannot be added as parties to the References pending before the lower Court is concerned, the same though hardly arises in the noted conclusion of mine yet I find that the lower Court appears to be completely oblivious of the provision of Section 53 of the Act and also some of the pronouncements of this Court wherein it der Section 18 of the Act is to be equated with a suit, an applicant with a plaintiff and an award with a SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.15 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5611-2019 2019(O&M) [4] decree (See Phuman v. The State of Punjab, 16 (1963) ILR 2 Punjab 442 and C.M. No. 305 I/1981 in R.F.A. No. 148/1980, Union Territory of Chandigarh through the Land Acquisition Collector, Chandigarh v. Sardara Singh and others, decided on 29th May, 1981 of the Act specifically attracts the applicability of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code so far as these are not inconsistent with anything contained in the Act to all the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Court. Reference under Section 18 of the Act is undoubtedly a proceeding under the Act and, thus, in the light of Section 53, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code would certainly apply to these proceedings. I am quite conscious of the fact that in some judgments, such as Mahananda Roy v. Satish Chandra Tewari, 7 (1910) Indian Cases 10, Md. Ibrahim Sahib v. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1958 Andhra Pradesh 226, and Municipality Nalgonda v. Hakim Mohiuddin, AIR 1964 Andhra Pradesh 305 person whose na reference made by the Collector cannot be added as a party to the proceedings before the Court, yet in a good number of other judgments, such as Kishen Chand v. Jagannath Prashad, ILR 25 Allahabad 133, Padmanabha Menon v. Bhaskara Menon, 1963 Kerala Law Journal 724, and Mt. Sakalbaso Kuer v. Brijendra Singh, AIR 1967 Patna 243 that in the Land Acquisition Act, there is nothing inconsistent with the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, and, thus, Acquisition Court in exercise of its powers under the later-mentioned provision read with Section 53 of the Act can certainly add a person as a Phuman v. The State of Punjab, 16 (1963) ILR 2 Punjab 442 and C.M. No. 305-C- I/1981 in R.F.A. No. 148/1980, Union Territory through the Land Acquisition Collector, Chandigarh v. Sardara Singh and others, decided on 29th May, 1981). Section 53 of the Act specifically attracts the applicability of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code so far as these are not inconsistent with anything contained in the Act to all the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Court. Reference under Section 18 of the Act is undoubtedly a proceeding under the Act and, thus, in the light of Section 53, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code would certainly apply to these proceedings. I am quite conscious of the fact that in some judgments, Mahananda Roy v. Satish Chandra Tewari, 7 (1910) Indian Cases 10, Md. Ibrahim Sahib v. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1958 Andhra Pradesh 226, and Municipality Nalgonda v. Hakim Mohiuddin, AIR 1964 Andhra Pradesh 305, it has been held that a person whose name is not mentioned in the reference made by the Collector cannot be added as a party to the proceedings before the Court, yet in a good number of other judgments, such as Kishen Chand v. Jagannath Prashad, ILR 25 Allahabad 133, Padmanabha Menon v. a Menon, 1963 Kerala Law Journal 724, and Mt. Sakalbaso Kuer v. Brijendra Singh, AIR 1967 Patna 243, it has been ruled that in the Land Acquisition Act, there is nothing inconsistent with the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, and, thus, the Land Acquisition Court in exercise of its powers under mentioned provision read with Section 53 of the Act can certainly add a person as a Phuman v. The State of Punjab, 16 - I/1981 in R.F.A. No. 148/1980, Union Territory through the Land Acquisition Collector, Chandigarh v. Sardara Singh and ). Section 53 of the Act specifically attracts the applicability of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code so far as these are not inconsistent with anything contained in the Act to all the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Court. Reference under Section 18 of the Act is undoubtedly a proceeding under the Act and, thus, in the light of Section 53, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code would certainly apply to these proceedings. I am quite conscious of the fact that in some judgments, Mahananda Roy v. Satish Chandra Tewari, 7 (1910) Indian Cases 10, Md. Ibrahim Sahib v. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1958 Andhra Pradesh 226, and Municipality Nalgonda v. Hakim Mohiuddin, AIR 1964 , it has been held that a me is not mentioned in the reference made by the Collector cannot be added as a party to the proceedings before the Court, yet in a good number of other judgments, such as Kishen Chand v. Jagannath Prashad, ILR 25 Allahabad 133, Padmanabha Menon v. a Menon, 1963 Kerala Law Journal 724, and Mt. Sakalbaso Kuer v. Brijendra t has been ruled that in the Land Acquisition Act, there is nothing inconsistent with the provisions of Order 1, Rule the Land Acquisition Court in exercise of its powers under mentioned provision read with Section 53 of the Act can certainly add a person as a SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.15 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5611-2019 6. respondent No.3 of petitioner rightly rejected by the learned Reference Court as a fresh reference at his instance at this stage, was clearly barred by limitation. He thus submits that while moving an application for impleadment in the pending reference, the petitioner with respect to limitation 18 of the Act 2019(O&M) [5] party if it appears to it just to do so or to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the questions involved in the case. Within this Court also it has been held in Phuman Singh's case (supra) in the context of Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code that there is no inconsistency between the provisions of this Order and Sections 20, 21. 23 and 26 of the A reasoning given in this judgment, the Land Acquisition Court can, to my mind, invoke its powers under Order 1, Rule 10. Civil Procedure Code, to add a party to the proceedings pending before it. Otherwise also, I find in the light of the provisions of Section 20 the Act that if the Land Acquisition Court is, required to cause a notice specifying the day on which it will proceed to determine the objection and directing all "persons interested" to put in appearance before the Court on that day then how can a person interested with reference to a particular land which has been compulsorily acquired under the Act not come before the Court and claim such notice and be heard.” On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-HSIIDC submits that the prayer made at the instance of petitioner for seeking impleadment in the pending reference was rightly rejected by the learned Reference Court as a fresh reference at instance at this stage, was clearly barred by limitation. He thus submits that while moving an application for impleadment in the pending reference, the petitioner only intended to avoid the objection with respect to limitation to his independent refer 18 of the Act. Learned counsel also submits that in the given facts, party if it appears to it just to do so or to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the involved in the case. Within this Court also it has been held in Phuman Singh's case (supra) in the context of Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code that there is no inconsistency between the provisions of this Order and Sections 20, 21. 23 and 26 of the Act. On a parity of reasoning given in this judgment, the Land Acquisition Court can, to my mind, invoke its powers under Order 1, Rule 10. Civil Procedure Code, to add a party to the proceedings pending before it. Otherwise also, I find in the light of the provisions of Section 20 the Act that if the Land Acquisition Court is, required to cause a notice specifying the day on which it will proceed to determine the objection and directing all "persons interested" to put in appearance before the Court day then how can a person interested with reference to a particular land which has been compulsorily acquired under the Act not come before the Court and claim such notice and be On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for HSIIDC submits that the prayer made at the instance seeking impleadment in the pending reference was rightly rejected by the learned Reference Court as a fresh reference at instance at this stage, was clearly barred by limitation. He thus submits that while moving an application for impleadment in the only intended to avoid the objection to his independent reference under Section . Learned counsel also submits that in the given facts, party if it appears to it just to do so or to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the involved in the case. Within this Court also it has been held in Phuman Singh's case (supra) in the context of Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code that there is no inconsistency between the provisions of this Order and Sections ct. On a parity of reasoning given in this judgment, the Land Acquisition Court can, to my mind, invoke its powers under Order 1, Rule 10. Civil Procedure Code, to add a party to the proceedings pending before it. Otherwise also, I find in the light of the provisions of Section 20 the Act that if the Land Acquisition Court is, required to cause a notice specifying the day on which it will proceed to determine the objection and directing all "persons interested" to put in appearance before the Court day then how can a person interested with reference to a particular land which has been compulsorily acquired under the Act not come before the Court and claim such notice and be On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for HSIIDC submits that the prayer made at the instance seeking impleadment in the pending reference was rightly rejected by the learned Reference Court as a fresh reference at instance at this stage, was clearly barred by limitation. He thus submits that while moving an application for impleadment in the only intended to avoid the objection ence under Section . Learned counsel also submits that in the given facts, SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.15 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5611-2019 Section 20 (b) of the Act was not applicable as the term “ interested” for the purpose of clause (b) to Section 20 was to be considered being restricted was thus not to be given any wider meaning to it by including all persons interested in the acquisition proceedings thus prays for dismissal of the present revision petition. 7. through the paper 8. to minutely go through the provisions of Section Act, which are extracted hereunder: 2019(O&M) [6] Section 20 (b) of the Act was not applicable as the term “ ” for the purpose of clause (b) to Section 20 was to be considered being restricted only to the parties to the reference and not to be given any wider meaning to it by including all persons interested in the acquisition proceedings prays for dismissal of the present revision petition. I have heard learned couns through the paper-book. Before delving into the merits of case, it may be essential to minutely go through the provisions of Section Act, which are extracted hereunder:- “Section 3: Definitions. something repugnant in the subject or context, (a) xxx (b) the expression “person interested” includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land.” Section 20: Service of notice thereupon cause a notice specifying the day on which the Court will proceed to determine the o directing their appearance before the Court on that day, to be served on the following persons, namely: (a) the applicant; (b) all persons interested in the objection, except such (if any) of them as have consented without protest to receive payment o and Section 20 (b) of the Act was not applicable as the term “person ” for the purpose of clause (b) to Section 20 was to be the parties to the reference and not to be given any wider meaning to it by including all persons interested in the acquisition proceedings. Learned counsel prays for dismissal of the present revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone Before delving into the merits of case, it may be essential to minutely go through the provisions of Sections 3(b) and 20 of the . - In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context, - xxx xxx; the expression “person interested” includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under t; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement Service of notice. - The Court shall thereupon cause a notice specifying the day on which the Court will proceed to determine the objection, and directing their appearance before the Court on that day, to be served on the following persons, namely: - all persons interested in the objection, except such (if any) of them as have consented without protest payment of the compensation awarded; person ” for the purpose of clause (b) to Section 20 was to be the parties to the reference and not to be given any wider meaning to it by including all . Learned counsel and gone Before delving into the merits of case, it may be essential 3(b) and 20 of the SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.15 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5611-2019 9. sharers of the acquired land regarding which re No.163/2018, titled as and ors. was filed and circumstances, undisputedly determination of acquisition and accordingly, happened to be terms of Section 3 (b) of the Act any reference under Section 18 of the Act, thereof, he being determination of market value by the LAC, was required to be served with notice upon the objections preferred at the instance of his co sharers. 10. behalf of learned counsel for respondent No.3 to the term “person interested” had a restrictive meaning so as to take into account only who were impleaded as parties to such objection; needs to be rejected for the reasons to follow. 10.1. the legislature deliberately used the interested in t cannot be given a 2019(O&M) [7] (c) If the objection is in regard to the area of the land or to the amount of the compensation, the Collector.” Admittedly, the petitioner happens to be one of the co of the acquired land regarding which re No.163/2018, titled as Suraj Bhan and ors. Vs. State of Haryana . was filed and is pending circumstances, undisputedly the petitioner determination of compensation to be made on accoun acquisition and accordingly, happened to be terms of Section 3 (b) of the Act. Though the petitioner did not prefer any reference under Section 18 of the Act, thereof, he being a “person intereste determination of market value by the LAC, was required to be served with notice upon the objections preferred at the instance of his co In the humble opinion of this Court, the argument raised on behalf of learned counsel for respondent No.3 to the “person interested” used in clause (b) of Section 20 of the Act had a restrictive meaning so as to take into account only who were impleaded as parties to such objection; needs to be rejected for the reasons to follow. A perusal of Section 20 (b) of the Act makes it clear that the legislature deliberately used the in the objections”, which by any stretch of imagination cannot be given any restrictive meaning so as to If the objection is in regard to the area of the land or to the amount of the compensation, the Collector.” Admittedly, the petitioner happens to be one of the co of the acquired land regarding which reference bearing LAC Suraj Bhan and ors. Vs. State of Haryana pending adjudication. Vs. State of Haryana pending adjudication. In such the petitioner was interested in the compensation to be made on account of such acquisition and accordingly, happened to be “person interested” in hough the petitioner did not prefer any reference under Section 18 of the Act, yet, as per Section 20 (b) “person interested” in the objection to the determination of market value by the LAC, was required to be served with notice upon the objections preferred at the instance of his co In the humble opinion of this Court, the argument raised on behalf of learned counsel for respondent No.3 to the effect that the used in clause (b) of Section 20 of the Act had a restrictive meaning so as to take into account only the persons who were impleaded as parties to such objection; needs to be rejected A perusal of Section 20 (b) of the Act makes it clear that the legislature deliberately used the wider term i.e. “all person ”, which by any stretch of imagination restrictive meaning so as to imply that notice of Admittedly, the petitioner happens to be one of the co- ference bearing LAC Suraj Bhan and ors. Vs. State of Haryana . In such was interested in the t of such in hough the petitioner did not prefer , as per Section 20 (b) to the determination of market value by the LAC, was required to be served with notice upon the objections preferred at the instance of his co- In the humble opinion of this Court, the argument raised on effect that the used in clause (b) of Section 20 of the Act the persons who were impleaded as parties to such objection; needs to be rejected A perusal of Section 20 (b) of the Act makes it clear that person ”, which by any stretch of imagination, notice of SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.15 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5611-2019 objections as per clause (b) interested being its wisdom used a specific term “ any restrictive objections was to itself as otherwise the leg the objections 11. Act show that the same have been incorporated at different stages of the landowners due and proper notice to the initiation of facts, nothing Section 20 (b) of the Act was ever served upon the objections preferred at the instance of his co reference (LAC No.163/2018 Reference Court went wrong the petitioner for seeking his impleadment in the pending reference. The aforesaid view can be derived from the observations made by this Court in Bhag Singh’s reproduced hereunder: 2019(O&M) [8] objections as per clause (b) needs to be served interested being party to the objections. its wisdom used a specific term “all person interested” restrictive meaning thereto to limit it was to go in contradiction with the intent of the legislature as otherwise the legislature could have used the term “ the objections” instead of “all persons interested in the objections Moreover, a perusal of Sections 5A, 9, 12 and show that the same have been incorporated ent stages with one common purpose to landowners, in line with the scheme of the Act which calls for due and proper notice to the “person interested” the proposal for acquisition facts, nothing is available on record to show that any notice under Section 20 (b) of the Act was ever served upon the objections preferred at the instance of his co reference (LAC No.163/2018). In such circumstances, the learned Reference Court went wrong in declining the petitioner for seeking his impleadment in the pending reference. The aforesaid view can be derived from the observations made by this Bhag Singh’s case (supra) and relevant part thereof is reproduced hereunder:- “Otherwise also, I find in the light of the provisions of Section 20 the Act that if the Land Acquisition Court is, required to cause a notice specifying the day on which it will proceed to determine the objection and directing all "persons interested" to p to be served only upon persons party to the objections. Thus, once the Legislature in person interested”, assigning of limit it only to the parties to the go in contradiction with the intent of the legislature islature could have used the term “Parties to all persons interested in the objections”. Sections 5A, 9, 12 and 20 of the show that the same have been incorporated with different object with one common purpose to safeguard the interest the scheme of the Act which calls for “person interested” at every step post the proposal for acquisition of their land. In the present available on record to show that any notice under Section 20 (b) of the Act was ever served upon the petitioner against the objections preferred at the instance of his co-sharers in the form of ). In such circumstances, the learned in declining the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for seeking his impleadment in the pending reference. The aforesaid view can be derived from the observations made by this case (supra) and relevant part thereof is Otherwise also, I find in the light of the provisions of Section 20 the Act that if the Land Acquisition Court is, required to cause a notice specifying the day on which it will proceed to determine the objection and directing all "persons interested" to put in appearance before the persons Legislature in assigning of only to the parties to the go in contradiction with the intent of the legislature Parties to of the with different objects interest the scheme of the Act which calls for at every step post- . In the present available on record to show that any notice under the petitioner against sharers in the form of ). In such circumstances, the learned the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for seeking his impleadment in the pending reference. The aforesaid view can be derived from the observations made by this case (supra) and relevant part thereof is Otherwise also, I find in the light of the provisions of Section 20 the Act that if the Land Acquisition Court is, required to cause a notice specifying the day on which it will proceed to determine the objection and directing all ut in appearance before the SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.15 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5611-2019 12. available on record to representative LAC or that ever served upon him, the learned Reference Court went wrong while non-suiting the petitioner on the ground of limitation. 13. allowed; the order dated 13.08.2019 (P Reference Court is hereby set aside and the prayer made by the petitioner seeking impleadment in the reference petition i.e. LAC No.163/2018, titled as and ors. being the “ 14. disposed of. 10.09.2025 sanjay 2019(O&M) [9] Court on that day then how can a person interested with reference to a particular land which has been compulsorily acquired under the Act not come before the Court and claim such notice and be heard.” Moreover, in the absence of there being any evidence available on record to establish that either the petitioner or any of his representatives was present at the time of passing of the award by the that any notice of such award along with a copy the ever served upon him, the learned Reference Court went wrong while suiting the petitioner on the ground of limitation. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision petition is allowed; the order dated 13.08.2019 (P Reference Court is hereby set aside and the prayer made by the petitioner seeking impleadment in the reference petition i.e. LAC No.163/2018, titled as Suraj Bhan and ors. Vs. State of Haryana being the “person interested” is allowed. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Court on that day then how can a person interested with reference to a particular land which has been compulsorily acquired under the Act not come before the Court and claim such notice and be heard.” Moreover, in the absence of there being any evidence establish that either the petitioner or any of his was present at the time of passing of the award by the notice of such award along with a copy thereof was ever served upon him, the learned Reference Court went wrong while suiting the petitioner on the ground of limitation. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision petition is allowed; the order dated 13.08.2019 (P-5) passed by the learned Reference Court is hereby set aside and the prayer made by the petitioner seeking impleadment in the reference petition i.e. LAC Suraj Bhan and ors. Vs. State of Haryana is allowed. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand ( HARKESH MANUJA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No Court on that day then how can a person interested with reference to a particular land which has been compulsorily acquired under the Act not come before the Moreover, in the absence of there being any evidence establish that either the petitioner or any of his was present at the time of passing of the award by the reof was ever served upon him, the learned Reference Court went wrong while In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision petition is earned Reference Court is hereby set aside and the prayer made by the petitioner seeking impleadment in the reference petition i.e. LAC Suraj Bhan and ors. Vs. State of Haryana Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.15 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document