Writ jurisdiction not maintainable for impleadment in pending land acquisition appeals; parties must seek relief before appellate court.

Writ petitions under Article 226 were held to be an inappropriate route for seeking impleadment in pending land acquisition appeals arising from references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The proper course was to move the appellate court by an appropriate application in the already pending appeals, rather than pursue a collateral writ challenge. The Court declined to examine the merits of the claimed right to impleadment in the writ proceedings and left the parties free to seek the same relief before the appellate court. The writ petitions were therefore dismissed as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India were maintainable for seeking impleadment in pending land acquisition appeals, instead of moving the appellate court by an appropriate application.

Analysis: The only relief actually required was impleadment in the pending appeals arising from references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The proper course was to approach the appellate court where those appeals were already pending. A collateral challenge through writ jurisdiction was not an appropriate procedural route for obtaining such relief. The Court therefore declined to examine the merits of the claimed right to impleadment in the writ proceedings and left the parties free to pursue the correct remedy before the appellate court.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable and were dismissed.

---