Facts: The Respondent, Mr. Teofilo Monteiro, claimed compensation for land acquired by the State for the Department of Sainik Welfare. His claim was based on a title of agricultural tenancy against the original occupant, the Communidade of Bambolim. In a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LAC No. 9/2011), the Petitioner (Department of Sainik Welfare) sought to implead the Communidade of Bambolim, the Land Acquisition Officer (Collector), and the CPWD. The Reference Court dismissed this impleadment application, holding that these parties were unnecessary for a Section 18 reference. Simultaneously, other related disputes regarding the same land's apportionment and tenancy were pending under Section 30 of the Act and before the Administrative Tribunal. Additionally, the District Court had passed orders denying an adjournment requested due to a witness's ill health, instead directing the party to replace the witness.
Procedural Posture: The Petitioner filed two Writ Petitions (WP No. 128/2026 and WP No. 127/2026) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, challenging the orders of the Adhoc-District Judge-2, North Goa, which had refused impleadment and denied the adjournment request.
Issue: 1. Whether the Communidade of Bambolim and the Collector are necessary parties to a Section 18 reference where the claimant's title is disputed and the quantum of compensation is challenged. 2. Whether a court can legally compel a party to replace a competent witness solely because the witness is temporarily unwell.
Holding: 1. Yes, the Communidade and the Collector are mandatory parties under Section 20 of the Act. 2. No, directing a change of witness due to health issues is untenable at law and contrary to the Evidence Act.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act makes it mandatory for the Reference Court to issue notice to "all persons interested in the objection" and the "Collector". Since the Respondent's claim of tenancy was against the Communidade, the latter was a person interested. The Collector's presence is essential as they are the only party capable of leading evidence to assist the court in determining the true market value. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in "Rajmani V/s Collector, Raipur", the Court held these provisions to be mandatory. Regarding the witness, the Court observed that if a witness is competent and possesses personal knowledge of facts, they cannot be precluded from testifying due to health issues; temporary delays are preferable to denying relevant evidence. To avoid conflicting awards, the High Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 24 of the CPC to transfer and club all related matters.