Impleading acquiring body in land acquisition disputes is proper where complete adjudication requires its presence

A body for whose benefit land is acquired may be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC where its presence is necessary for complete adjudication, particularly when the validity of acquisition and the compensation burden directly affect it. The later of two co-equal Supreme Court decisions was treated as the controlling authority where the earlier and later views conflicted. On that basis, the refusal to implead the acquiring body was set aside and the body was directed to be added as a defendant so the land acquisition dispute could be effectively determined.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the acquiring body for whose benefit the land was acquired was a necessary or proper party entitled to be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) whether, in case of conflict between two Supreme Court decisions of equal strength, the later decision should be followed.

Issue (i): whether the acquiring body for whose benefit the land was acquired was a necessary or proper party entitled to be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Analysis: Order 1 Rule 10(2) permits addition of a person who ought to have been joined or whose presence is necessary for complete adjudication. The expression covers both necessary and proper parties. In land acquisition matters, the body for whose benefit acquisition is made is vitally interested where the validity of acquisition is challenged, especially when the compensation burden and practical consequences of the decision directly affect that body. Reading the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the light of the Supreme Court's later view, the acquiring body cannot be treated as a stranger to the dispute.

Conclusion: the acquiring body is at least a proper party and is entitled to be added as a defendant.

Issue (ii): whether, in case of conflict between two Supreme Court decisions of equal strength, the later decision should be followed

Analysis: Where two co-equal decisions of the Supreme Court point in different directions, the courts must prefer the later decision if the Bench strength is equal, unless the larger Bench view governs. Applying that principle, the later decision recognising the acquiring body as a person interested was treated as the controlling authority.

Conclusion: the later Supreme Court decision prevails over the earlier inconsistent view.

Final Conclusion: the revision succeeded, the impugned refusal to implead was set aside, and the acquiring body was directed to be added so that the land acquisition dispute could be effectively and completely adjudicated.

Ratio Decidendi: a body for whose benefit land is acquired may be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10(2) when its presence is necessary for complete adjudication, and where co-equal Supreme Court decisions conflict, the later decision should ordinarily be followed.

---