Any person not made a party to such proceeding may become such by filing a cross petition at any time before the hearing, setting forth that he is an owner or has an interest in the property sought to be taken or damaged by the petitioner and stating the character and extent of such interest. The rights of such person shall thereupon be fully considered and determined. Except for such cross petition, there shall be no written pleadings on the part of any party to the proceeding, but, at the hearing provided for in section 38-1-105, the court shall hear and dispose of all objections that may be raised touching the legal sufficiency of the petition or cross petition or the regularity of the proceedings in any other respect. In case any person or corporation at any time or in any manner succeeds to the right of any party in the subject matter of the proceeding, such proceeding shall not abate thereby, but such person or corporation, upon motion and upon proof of the fact of such succession, shall be substituted for such party as a party to the proceeding.
Source: G.L. § 1069. G.S. C. § 248. L. 1889: p. 158, § 4. R.S. 08: § 2426. C.L. § 6322. CSA: C. 61, § 12. CRS 53: § 50-1-12. C.R.S. 1963: § 50-1-12.
ANNOTATION
Cross petition may encompass lands not included in petition. The language of this section is broad enough to permit the defendant to file a cross petition where he has other lands that will be affected by the condemnation proceedings, which are not included in the petition. Denver & R.G.R.R. v. Griffith, 17 Colo. 598, 31 P. 171 (1892).
Party allowed to defend title to preserve voluntary agreement with condemnor. Intervention has been refused in eminent domain proceedings only where the intervenor has no interest in the property. Nothing in this section precludes a party from defending its title from condemnation in order to preserve its rights under a voluntary agreement with the condemnor. Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Anderson, 34 Colo. App. 37, 525 P.2d 478 (1974), aff'd, 188 Colo. 337, 534 P.2d 1201 (1975).
Disregarding intervention rights constitutes error. The rights of a minor in real estate may be condemned; and, when a petition in intervention is filed in a condemnation proceeding setting forth such rights, it is error to disregard the same. Hutchinson v. McLaughlin, 15 Colo. 492, 25 P. 317 (1890).
Intervenor has right to appeal final judgment adversely affecting it once intervention has been properly granted. Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Anderson, 34 Colo. App. 37, 525 P.2d 478 (1974), aff'd, 188 Colo. 337, 534 P.2d 1201 (1975).
Statute as basis for jurisdiction. Jacobucci v. District Court, 189 Colo. 380, 541 P.2d 667 (1975).
Applied in Otero Canal Co. v. Fosdick, 20 Colo. 522, 39 P. 332 (1895); Colo. E.R.R. v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry., 141 F. 898 (8th Cir. 1905); Deepe v. United States, 103 Colo. 294, 86 P.2d 242 (1938); Boxberger v. State Hwy. Comm'n, 126 Colo. 526, 251 P.2d 920 (1952).