A claimant under an agreement of sale cannot be impleaded in a Section 18 reference.

The petitioner sought impleadment in a land-acquisition reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming an interest in the acquired properties under an Agreement of Sale.

The Reference Court rejected his application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC, finding that he was not a necessary party and reserving his right to pursue an independent remedy.

The petitioner had also filed O.S. No. 443/2019 for specific performance of the Agreement of Sale, which was pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala.

1. Whether a person claiming an interest in acquired property under an Agreement of Sale may be impleaded in a Section 18(1) land-acquisition reference.

2. Whether the Reference Court’s rejection of the petitioner’s impleadment application warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 confines a reference court’s inquiry to the statutory parameters of the reference; it does not extend to adjudicating independent contractual or proprietary claims arising outside the acquisition proceedings.

Order I Rule 10(2) CPC concerns the addition of parties to proceedings, while Section 151 CPC preserves the court’s inherent powers; neither permits a party to enlarge the limited scope of a statutory reference to obtain adjudication of an independent Agreement of Sale claim.

The petitioner’s asserted interest arose from an Agreement of Sale, not from the acquisition proceedings themselves. Determining that contractual claim would require adjudication beyond the limited scope of the Section 18(1) reference.

Since the petitioner had already brought a specific-performance suit, the High Court held that the claim should be determined in that independent proceeding, without treating the Reference Court’s order as an adjudication of the petitioner’s rights.

It reserved the petitioner’s right to pursue remedies in O.S. No. 443/2019 and directed that its observations should not prejudice the parties’ rights or contentions in that suit.