(Civil) 674 held that reference Court cannot convert reference under Section 18 of the Act into reference under Section 30 of the Act and vice versa, but in the instant case, reference under Section 30 of the Act is already pending and applicant-petitioner simply wants to become party thereto. It was submitted that in view of agreement set up by the applicant-petitioner, he is 'person interested' within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act and therefore, applicant-petitioner has right to be impleaded as party to the reference under Section 30 of the Act. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Bombay High Court in case of Mohammad Akil Khan versus Premraj Jawanmal Surana and another, AIR 1972 Bombay 217 and judgment of this Court in case of Harbhajan versus Ruppa and another, 2004 (1) LJR 406 . Relying on judgment of Supreme Court in case of Gian Chand versus Gopala, 1995(2) RRR 40, it was also contended that if the contract is frustrated on account of acquisition of land, the vendee is entitled to claim refund of the earnest money. Counsel for the petitioner relying on Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Indraj versus Shamlat Deh Patti Jattan Village Badoranghran, 1993(1) PLR 81 and Single Bench judgments of this Court in cases of Bagh Singh and others versus The Special Land Acquisition Collector and another, 1984 PLR 568 and Union of India versus Kartar Singh, 2000(2) RCR (Civil) 233 contended that reference Court has power to implead any interested person as party to the reference in view of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) read with Section 53 of the Act which makes applicable provisions of CPC to proceedings under the Act before the Court i.e. reference Court.
