Civil Revision No. 3368 of 2003 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3368 of 2003 Date of Decision: 16.9.2010 CEO Kurukshetra Development Board, Kurukshetra .....Petitioner Versus Thakur Dwara Dera Baba Gudar Thanesar and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri S.C. Sibal, Senior Advocate, with Shri V.S. Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Anoop Sharma, AAG, Haryana, for respondent No.3. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 29.3.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby application filed by Thakur Dwara Dera Baba Gudar, Thanesar for being impleaded as party to the land acquisition proceedings, was allowed. Civil Revision No. 3368 of 2003 (O&M) [2] Land measuring 60 kanals 1 marla was acquired by the State Government vide notification dated 16.2.1996 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short `the Act’). In the said proceedings, the Land Acquisition Collector, found that there is a dispute regarding apportionment of compensation between the lessor and lessee and lessee and another lessee. The said dispute between the parties was referred to the District Judge, Kurukshetra under Section 30 of the Act for adjudication. In the said proceedings, Thakur Dwara Dera Baba Gudar, Thanesar, filed an application to seek impleadment as a respondent claiming compensation of the acquired land. The said application has been allowed by the learned trial Court, which is subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that Mumukshu Mandal has consented to the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, therefore, Thakur Dwara Dera Baba Gudar, Thanesar, cannot claim any enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Act. It is argued that the said applicant has not sought any reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act, which alone would entitle them to seek enhancement of compensation. The applicant has sought to be impleaded for the reason that it is owner of the acquired land. Whether the applicant is owner of the acquired land and to what extent the compensation is payable to the lessees or whether the consent to the amount of compensation by Mumukshu Mandal is binding on the applicant, are the questions which can be adjudicated upon by the Reference Court alone. At this stage, it cannot be said that the applicant is total stranger to the controversy and is not required to be impleaded in the proceedings. Civil Revision No. 3368 of 2003 (O&M) [3] In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may require interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] 13.9.2010 JUDGE sonia/ds