A pending tenancy claim does not confer a right to join land-acquisition compensation proceedings.

The petitioner sought impleadment as a claimant in a land-acquisition reference under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, concerning land claimed by respondents 1(A)–1(F).

He asserted that he was a tenant of the acquired land and that his father’s Form No. 7 application for occupancy rights was pending before the Land Tribunal.

The Reference Court rejected his application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.

The petitioner challenged that order and sought to keep the reference proceedings in abeyance pending the Tribunal’s decision.

Whether the petitioner could be impleaded as a claimant in the land-acquisition reference on the basis of a pending Form No. 7 application, despite not having established his rights over the acquired land.

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

The application for impleadment was considered under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The reference proceedings were brought under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and concerned a claim for enhanced compensation.

The mere pendency of an application before the Land Tribunal does not, by itself, establish a claimant’s rights in the acquired property or entitle that person to join the compensation-reference proceedings.

The petitioner’s asserted tenancy and claim to occupancy rights had not yet been determined by the Land Tribunal.

The reference proceedings, by contrast, concerned the land losers’ claim for higher compensation, and the petitioner had not established a right in the acquired property.

The Court therefore held that the pending Form No. 7 application alone did not justify impleadment and found no error in the Reference Court’s decision warranting supervisory or constitutional interference.

It observed that, if the petitioner succeeds before the Land Tribunal, he may pursue any remedies available to him in accordance with law.