1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATTION NO. 2685 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1124 OF 2009 Dagdu Sadu Kank & Ors. Applicants V/s Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation .. Respondents. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2405 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1126 OF 2009 Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation .. Appellant V/s. Pandurang Bhagu Kank & Ors. .. Respondents. And Shri Dagdu Sadu Kank and others .. Applicants. WITH CIVIL APLICATION NO. 2411 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1119 OF 2009 Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation .. Appellant V/s. Kisan Siddhu Kank (Deceased) Through his legal heirs Shivaji Kisan Kank & Ors. .. Respondents. And Shri Dagdu Sadu Kank and others ..Applicants. Mr. Pramod J. Pawar for the Applicants in all applications. Mr. V.B. Nighot for the Respondents (Original Appellants in original 2 Appeals.) Mr. Arvind Purohit with Mr. G.K. Maurya i/by Smt. P.H. Potnis, for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in C.A.No.2685 of 2010, for Respondent No.1 and 2 in C.A.No. 2405 and for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in C.A. No. 2411 of 2010. CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 16TH AUGUST, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties. By these applications, it is prayed that the applicants be added as party respondents in the pending appeals. According to the applicants, they had half share in the lands under acquisition in the project of Neera Deoghar Dam. The said lands were joint family property, originally owned and possessed by their predecessor Janu Mahadu Kank. He had two sons by name Bhagu and Sadu. The respondents in the appeal are children of Bhagu, whereas, the applicants are the children of Sadu. In this background, it is submitted that the applicants have had half share in the lands under acquisition. For that reason the applicants be impleaded as party-respondents in the pending appeals. 2. These applications are resisted by the Appellant-Corporation, as well as by the Respondents-private parties-claimants. According to the 3 Corporation, the applicants have approached at a belated stage. The applicants were aware about the acquisition proceedings as far as back in September 1996, which is evident from their own application addressed to the Special Land Acquisition Officer. They did not take steps for that before the Special Land Acquisition Officer or in the Reference Proceedings and now cannot be impleaded for the first time in the appeal filed by the Corporation before this Court. The learned Counsel for the private parties- respondents-claimants submitted that the acquisition proceedings continued in respect of the land and notices were issued to the persons, whose names appeared in the 7/12 extracts at the relevant time. The names of the respondents/claimants were shown in the 7/12 extracts for which reason they were issued notices pursuant to which they participated in the proceedings before the Special Land Acquisition Officer as also carried the matter further by way of Reference. In none of these proceedings, the applicants participated. For that reason the applicants would not be entitled for any compensation. In support of this submissions reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Smt. Ambey Devi V. State of Bihar and another, reported in AIR 1996 SC. 1513. In paragraph 4 of the said decision, the Apex Court has observed that "the appellant had not filed any application, as required under Section 18(1) read with Section 18(2) of the Act. Section 53 does not apply to the facts of the case." It further observed that "the procedure prescribed under Section 18 and 30 is inconsistent with 4 the procedure prescribed under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC.Order 1, Rule 10 CPC would apply to implead a necessary or proper party to effectuate complete adjudication of all the disputes having arisen between all the necessary or proper parties who may be bound by the decision. That question does not arise since inconsistent procedure has been prescribed under the Act." The appeal pending before this Court is arising out of the acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act. It is, therefore, submitted that the applicants cannot be impleaded as party-respondents in the pending appeals. 2. Having considered the rival submissions, we are in agreement with the objection taken by the Corporation that the present applications praying for impleadment as party-respondents in the pending appeals are hopelessly delayed. The fact that the applicants had knowledge of the acquisition proceeding can be inferred from their own application addressed to the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 30th September, 1996. Since the applicants were not parties to the Land Acquisition Proceeding, the question of allowing them to be impleaded as party-respondent in the appeals does not arise. This however, would not preclude the applicants to pursue their remedy against respondents-claimants for share in the compensation amount including interest accrued thereon if any, which claim will have to be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. In the 5 event, the Civil Court were to declare that the land originally belonged to the joint family and was inherited from Janu Mahadu Kank, being children of Bhagu Janu Kank, it would necessarily follow that, in law, Bhagu Janu Kank would have been entitled to half share in the said property. It is not the case of the Respondents/Claimants that partition had taken place between the family. Although, the applicants have made out ground as to the circumstances in which they could not participate in acquisition proceedings, it is not necessary for us to examine the same. That may be relevant consideration in the civil suit pending between the Respondents/Claimants and the Applicants. If so, the applicants may be justified in pursing their claim against the respondents-claimants for sharing the compensation amount in equal proportion alongwith the interest accrued thereon, as they are the heirs of another son of Janu Mahadu Kank, namely, Sadu Janu Kank. We express no final opinion in this behalf as the issue will have to be considered by the Civil Court, where the suit is pending between the private parties 3. Since it is observed that the prayer for impleadment as party respondents in the pending appeals filed by the Corporation cannot be granted, that relief is turned down without prejudice to the claim of the applicants against the respondents for suitable relief before the Civil Court. 6 4. That takes us to another grievance made on behalf of the applicants. It is submitted that since the respondents would be entitled to only 50% of the compensation amount they should not be allowed to withdraw the entire amount of compensation, as is permitted in terms of order dated November 26, 2009. Even this grievance is unacceptable. Because the condition imposed on the respondents in the order dated November 26, 2009 is to furnish Bank Guarantee of a Nationalized Bank to the satisfaction of the lower Court. The Bank Guarantee would be good enough to realise the compensation amount received by the respondents in the event the Civil Court were to so order. In one sense, the Respondents/Claimants shall withdraw the entire amount but withhold 50% of that amount as trustees thereof on behalf of the the Applicants, if they succeed before the Civil Court. Therefore, it will be open to the applicants to ask for appropriate interim relief before the Civil Court. We express no opinion in that behalf. We may, however, observe that the suit pending before the Civil Court between the Applicants and the Respondents/Claimants be decided expeditiously considering the nature of controversy between them interse. 5 In the circumstances, the applications are disposed of in the above terms. (A.A.SAYED,J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.) 7