Find a Lawyer

First Civil Appeal No.60 of 1980, decided on 25th November, 1986.

‑‑‑Ss. 20 & 54‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 96 & 0.1, R.9‑ Non‑joinder of party‑‑Notice under S. 20 of Act I of 1894 to Government or Department for whose benefit land was acquired is a condition precedent for reference‑‑Such notice to Department of Local Authority or company for whose benefit land was acquired is independent notice in addition to a notice to Collector, and is a condition Precedent for proceeding with reference‑‑Non‑joinder of party could not be made ground for dismissal of suit in circumstances for it was the duty cast on the Court to issue statutory notice.

Hassan Imdad v. Deputy Commissioner/ Collector Lalbala P L D 1985 Q uetta 1 ref.

Noorul Hassan for Appellants.

Abdul Hameed Khan for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing: 25th November, 1986.

This first appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with section 96 of the C.P.C. is filed by the claimant /appellant against the order of 2nd Additional District Judge, Hyderabad, dismissing the Reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on the sole ground that the appellant failed to implead the Government of Sind who was necessary party to the suit as defendant. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the dismissal of the suit on the ground of non‑impleading of Government of Sind as a party in the suit is a perverse order as Government of Sind was not a necessary party in the suit. It is alternatively contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in any case in view of provisions of Order I, Rule 9, C.P.C. the Court had no jurisdiction to dismiss the suit on the ground of alleged non‑joinder of a party. Mr. Abdul Hameed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has cited the case of Hassan Imdad v . Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, Lalbala P L D 1985 Quetta 1. In the above cited case relied by the learned counsel for the respondent No.l which was decided by a Full Bench of Quetta High Court, it has been held that after amendment of section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act a notice to the Department of Government for which the land was acquired is a condition precedent for proceedings with the reference. It is further stated in the above s case that the object of such notice is to enable the representative of the department to adduce evidence for the purposes of determining compensation. The case relied by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, however, did not improve the position in the case as the section relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 cast a duty on the Court to issue the statutory notice required under section 29 of the Land Acquisition Act. If the Court had committed to send such a notice that could not be made a ground for dismissal of the suit on account of the alleged non‑joinder of the party. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that as the Collector in this case was a representative of the department of WAPDA for whose benefit the land was admittedly acquired. No separate notice was necessary to WAPDA in the case. I have carefully read section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended and after reading the same I am of the view that the notice to the department of the Government, Local Authority or Company for whose benefit the land is acquired is an independent notice in addition to a notice to the Collector. In the present case the R & P of the case does not show that any such notice was served on the WAPDA for whose benefit the land was acquired in the case. However, it is B unfortunate that the learned Judge instead of amending his own mistake and omission to issue notice to the WAPDA should have resorted to the dismissal of the suit for the alleged non‑joinder of the party. If the learned Judge would have cared to look to the provisions of section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act and Order I, Rule 9, C.P.C. I am sure the result would have been different. I accordingly accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the trial Court with the direction to decide the issue in the case after compliance of the provisions of section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act. As the Reference was originally instituted in the year 1979 the trial Court is further directed to complete the proceedings and dispose of the case within three months of the receipt of R&P from this Court. There will be no order as to costs.

S. A. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.