Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rameshwar Sharma vs J D A And Anr on 8 May, 2019
Author: Veerendr Singh Siradhana
Bench: Veerendr Singh Siradhana
(1 of 30) [CW-11547/2017]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11547/2017
Rameshwar Sharma S/o Late Shri Jagannath Sharma, By Caste
Brahman, R/o Village Chainpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jaipur Development Authority Through Its Secretary,
Indira Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.
2. New Pink City Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Through
Its Secretary, Shri Suresh Jain S/o Late Sh, 7 Farsoiya
Market, Babu Bazar, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.D. Rastogi, Sr. Counsel with Mr.
Sarthak Rastogi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Sharma, Sr. Counsel with Mr.
Sandeep Pathak
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Order
08/05/2019
By order dated 15th March, 2016, the Jaipur Development
Authority Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, the 'Tribunal'),
allowed an application for impleadment of third party-New Pinkcity
Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. (for short, 'respondent-Society)
and prayer for its review declined vide order dated 17 th May, 2017;
is the cause for institution of the present writ application praying
for the following relief(s):
"It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ
application may kindly be allowed and by way of a writ,
order or direction in the nature thereof, the impugned
order dated 15.03.2016 and 17.05.2017 passed by the
Learned JDA tribunal in reference No.205/2009 may
kindly be quashed and set aside and thereby the
(D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM)
(2 of 30) [CW-11547/2017]
application for impleadment submitted by the society may
also kindly be dismissed.
Any other orders directions or relief in favour of the
petitioner as may be deemed fit and proper in the fact and
circumstances of the case, may kindly be granted."
2. Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts necessary for
appreciation of the controversy raised are that: the petitioner
claiming himself recorded 'Khatedar' of land bearing Khasra No.
146, 147, 148, 149, 150 and 164, in Village Chainpura, Tehsil
Sanganer, Jaipur, has filed a Reference Petition before the
Tribunal. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that land acquisition
proceedings with reference to subject land were initiated under
the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short, 'the Act of
1953'). Notice under Section 4 and 6 were issued on 26 th April,
1969 and 25th February, 1973, respectively. Award was made on
2nd April, 1981. On an application for regularization of his
possession on a part of subject land measuring 9500 Sq. Yrds.,
the State Government made an order dated 23 rd October, 2008,
directing the respondent-JDA to issue a lease deed for land in
possession measuring 9500 Sq. Yrds., subject to withdrawal of
writ application instituted by the petitioner. The State Government
in continuation of the order dated 23 rd October, 2008, made
another order dated 14th May, 2014, directing the respondent-JDA
to issue lease deed in favour of the petitioner wherein claim of the
respondent-Society was rejected after due examination. According
to the petitioner, the order dated 14 th May, 2014, was not
challenged any further by the respondent-Society. Pending the
proceedings on the reference petition aforesaid; an application
(D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM)
(3 of 30) [CW-11547/2017]
under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, was instituted by the respondent-
Society), which has been granted by the Tribunal vide impugned
order dated 15th March, 2016 and an application for review of the
order dated 15th March, 2016, has been declined vide order dated
17th March, 2017; of which the petitioner is aggrieved of.
3. Mr. R.D. Rastogi, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Sarthak
Rastogi, emphatically argued that impugned order made by the
Tribunal dated 15th March, 2016 granting the application for
impleadment as party and declining its review prayed vide order
dated 17th May, 2017; are orders, absolutely illegal, invalid and
arbitrary so also contrary to the well settled principles of law.
Learned counsel referring to the prayer clause of the reference
petition instituted, pending before the Tribunal, asserted that no
relief has been prayed by the petitioner against respondent-
Society, and therefore, respondent No.2, is neither a necessary
party nor a proper party.
4. That apart, the petitioner is a dominus litus, and therefore,
has a right to choose whom to implead as a party
respondent/non-applicant and determine the relief prayed for. The
Respondent-Society, if has any right or title in the subject land
involved herein, is required to undertake independent
proceedings.
5. Referring to order-sheets dated 17th February, 2012, 23rd
March, 2012, 1st may, 2012, 12th July, 2012, 23rd August, 2012,
23rd September, 2012 and 11th December, 2018; learned counsel
insistently argued that the so called agreement dated 21 st January,
1976, which is the basis of the alleged claim of the respondent-
Society, was allowed to be brought on record, by the Tribunal, on
(D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM)
(4 of 30) [CW-11547/2017]
the dates aforesaid. However, no such alleged agreement dated
21st January, 1976, was brought on record and the counsel
representing respondent-Society, before the Tribunal on 11 th
December, 2012, pleaded that sufficient documentary evidence
has been placed on record along with application seeking
impleadment, and therefore, they would proceed to argue the
matter on the basis of those documents and do not want to bring
on record the agreement dated 21 st January, 1976. Accordingly,
the matter was ordered to be proceeded further by the Tribunal
leading to impugned order dated 15 th March, 2016, allowing the
application of respondent No.2, to be pending impleaded as
opposite party respondent No.2, to the reference proceedings.
6. Mr. R.D. Rastogi, learned Sr. Counsel, referring to prohibition on
transfer of lands acquired and/or under acquisition as contemplated
under Section 3 and 4 of the Rajasthan Land (Restrictions on Transfer)
Act, 1976, (for short, 'the Act of 1976'), contended that no transfer by
sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise of any land or part thereof, in
the State of Rajasthan, acquired by the Government or lands in relation
to which acquisition process having been initiated, is permissible.
Hence, the pretext on which the respondent-Society claimed its stake
for impleadment as a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal on
the Reference Petition instituted by the petitioner; cannot be sustained
in the eye of law.
7. Learned counsel further pointed out that J.D.A. Appellate Tribunal,
upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties on 2 nd March, 2016,
specifically made an order to the effect that application under Order 1
Rule 10 CPC, would be considered at the time of final arguments on the
matter, as would be evident from the order-sheet drawn on 2 nd March,
2016, while posting the matter to 16 th March, 2016. Hence, the
(D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM)
(5 of 30) [CW-11547/2017]
impugned order dated 15 March 2016, is bad in the eye of law on that
count as well.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vociferously argued that
the impugned order dated 15th March, 2016, was made in absence
of the counsel for the petitioner, though his presence has been
recorded. Further, an application instituted by the counsel for the
petitioner before the Tribunal specifically detailed out the fact of
his (counsel's) absence on the day, the impugned order dated 15 th
March, 2016, was made. However, that application has also been
declined observing that the matter required no review for the
same was not within the ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
9. Inviting attention of this Court to order dated 12 th June, 2009
(Annexure-11), learned Senior Counsel, contended that Reference
Petition No.97/2003, instituted by the respondent-Society, staking
its claim on the subject land was declined with a specific finding
that the respondent-Society, was not entitled to any relief. That
apart, a Civil Suit No. 154/2012, instituted by the respondent-
Society, impleading the petitioner, along with others, as
defendant; was also dismissed on an application instituted under
Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 16 and 151 CPC, vide order
dated 6th October, 2012, which has attained finality as the same
was not challenged any further. Thus, in the face of facts aforesaid
respondent-society is neither a necessary party nor a proper
party.
10. Learned counsel further added that order dated 1st July,
2008, made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in SBCWP No.
231/1975 (Rameshwar Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.),
instituted by the petitioner impleading respondent-Society as a
(D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM)
(6 of 30) [CW-11547/2017]
respondent along with others; pointed out that though the writ
application was dismissed; however, relief was accorded in favour
of respondent-Society, impleaded as respondent No.4, in writ
application No.231/1975 (supra). Thereafter, the petitioner as well
as the State-respondents, instituted intra court appeals against
the order made by the learned Single Judge.
11. According to learned counsel, the intra court appeal
instituted by the State of Rajasthan (DBSAW No.253/2010),
impleading the petitioner as well as respondent-Society, as party
respondents was decided vide order dated 2 nd April, 2010,
specifically setting aside the observations/directions made in the
impugned judgment by the learned Single Judge pertaining to
relief accorded to the respondent-Society. The Division Bench in
no uncertain terms held that observations/directions made in
favour of the respondent-Society, could not be treated as a part of
the impugned judgment dated 1st July, 2008, made by the learned
Single Judge. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the
petitioner whatever observations/directions were made by the
learned Single Judge contrary to law, were completely wiped out.
However, respondent No.2-Society, has interfered with the subject
land at every stage in order to frustrate the claim of the petitioner
on the basis of the observations/directions made by the learned
Single Judge vide judgment dated 1 st July, 2008, on writ
application that was instituted by the petitioner, in spite of the fact
that those observations/directions, have been completely wiped
out in the intra court appeals aforesaid.
12. Mr. Rastogi, referring to order dated 11 th November, 2010,
made on SB Civil Misc. Application No. 4/2010 in SBCWP No.
(D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM)
(7 of 30) [CW-11547/2017]
31/1975: (Rameshwar Vs. New Pinkcity Grah Nirman Sahakari
Samiti Ltd. and Ors.), pointed out that in the backdrop of the
judgment in intra court appeals No.1376/2008 and 253/2010,
wiping out the observations made by the learned Single Judge in
favour of the respondent-Society; it was held that rights of the
parties would be governed by the judgment delivered by the
Division Bench of this Court in intra court appeal No.235/2010,
which had attained finality holding that any party, if made
misrepresentation of any kind, the aggrieved party would be
entitled to maintain proper contempt petition.
In order to fortify his stand learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon the opinion of the Apex Court of the land in the
case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municapal
Corporation of Greater Bombay and ors.: (1992) 2 SCC 524,
Mumbai International Airport Private Limited Vs. Regency
Convention Centre and Hotels Private Ltd and Ors.: (2010) 7
SCC 417, Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd and Ors. Vs.
Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.: (2012) 8 SCC 384.
Reference has also been made to opinion of a Coordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Jaipur Development Authority and
Anr. Vs. Ambiance Land Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd and
Anr.:SBCWP No. 15546/2011, decided on 11th April, 2012.
13. Per contra: Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, learned senior counsel,
while supporting the impugned orders dated 15th March, 2016 and
17th May, 2017, strenuously argued that institution of the writ
application is a gross misuse of process of law. For in the backdrop
of regularization of the Scheme of the State of Rajasthan with
(D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM)
(8 of 30) [CW-11547/2017]
reference to the land involved herein; the petitioner has no right
worth the name. According to learned counsel, petitioner was
Khatedar of 9 bighas and 5 biswas of the land that was under
acquisition. It is also pointed out that Jagannath (deceased),
father of the petitioner, sold the subject land involved herein vide
an agreement of sale dated 21st January, 1976, to the respondent-
Society. Moreover, while the petitioner has staked claim on the
basis of 9 bighas and 5 biswas of the land acquired; but, the
petitioner has restricted his claim only to the extent of land
measuring 9,500 sq. yrds.
14. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, would further contend that
respondent-Society has right and interest in the subject land
involved herein and any order made by the Tribunal would affect
its rights and interest, and therefore, has been rightly impleaded
as a party respondent to the pending Reference proceedings on an
application instituted under order 1 Rule 10 CPC, as would be
evident from the contents of application itself.
15. Repelling the plea that the application under Order 1 Rule 10
CPC of the respondent-Society was to be considered at the time of
final arguments, in the backdrop of the order sheet dated 2 nd
March, 2016; learned counsel would contend that a glance of the
order sheet on 2nd March, 2016, would reflect that the matter was
fixed for final arguments; and accordingly, the application has
been rightly dealt with and order made on 15 th March, 2016. Thus,
there is no illegality. It is further pointed out that what can be
considered by this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdictional, is, only
jurisdictional error.
(D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM)
(9 of 30) [CW-11547/2017]
16. Referring to application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC,
instituted on behalf of the respondent-Society, it is pointed out
that application was accompanied with as many as 12 documents
which strengthened the claim of the respondent-Society for
impleadment to the pending reference proceedings. The review
application instituted with a prayer for review of order dated 15 th
March, 2016 impugned, was rightly declined for the counsel for
the petitioner was heard, as would be evident from the contents of
the order dated 15th March, 2016; recording reasons for
impleadment. Hence, the statement made on behalf of the
petitioner that the application for impleadment was allowed
without hearing the counsel for the petitioner; is contrary to
record.
17. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, learned senior counsel, referring to
"additional agreement" dated 5th May, 1987, urged that the father of the
petitioner late Shri Jagannath did admit the factum of an agreement
dated 21st January, 1976, and also acknowledged the payment received.
Hence, the Tribunal committed no error in granting the application of
the respondent-Society for impleadment as party to the pending
reference proceedings.
18. Referring to order dated 1st July, 2008, made by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in SBCWP No. 231/1975: Rameshwar Prasad Vs.
The State of Rajasthan and Ors.; it is urged that writ application
instituted by the petitioner challenging the acquisition proceedings of
the subject land involved herein; was dismissed. Further, the
respondent-Society was one of the parties to the writ proceedings
aforesaid and while dismissing the writ application, certain
observations/directions were made in favour of the respondent-Society.
While upholding the acquisition proceedings of the subject land involved
(D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM)
(10 of 30) [CW-11547/2017]
herein, this Court directed the respondent-JDA to proceed further and
issue lease-deeds to the members of the respondent-Housing Society.
However, on intra-court appeal(s), the observations/directions made in
favour of the respondent-Society were wiped out; but, the findings
justify impleadment of the respondent-Society to the pending reference
proceedings. Moreover, the Division Bench on an application for
clarification observed that the respondent-JDA may proceed according
to its record and to verify the physical and actual possession on the
spot, and thereafter, do the needful, in accordance with law. Therefore,
the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that respondent-Society has
no interest in the subject land involved herein; is without any factual
foundation.
19. Referring to order dated 2nd April, 2010, made by this Court in
DBSAW No. 253/2010, learned senior counsel contended that as to
acquisition, if any party intended to stake his right or claim; liberty was
reserved to take legal recourse. Therefore, impleadment of the
respondent-Society cannot be faulted. Learned counsel emphasized that
the petitioner has right, if any, only to the extent of land measuring
2,111 sq.yrds., and therefore, the claim staked for 9,500 sq.yrds, is a
claim without any factual foundation.
20. It is further added that a Civil Suit instituted by the petitioner
along with his brothers, was withdrawn by institution of an application
under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC. The Court below allowed withdrawal of the
suit proceedings vide order dated 26 th November, 2009. However, an
application for restoration filed, was allowed only in part. Surely, the
petitioner has not been allowed restoration of the suit proceedings.
Though, the matter is subjudice in SBCWP No.4469/2019: Pt.
Jagannath Vs. Shri Suresh Chandra Jain, with an interim protection.
Reference has also been made to note-sheet of the JDA, wherein the
matter of regularization has been dealt with while considering the
(D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM)
(11 of 30) [CW-11547/2017]
transfer of the subject land involved herein as valid or not. And that
issue is to be dealt with by the Tribunal.
21. In order to fortify his stand, learned counsel has also relied upon
the opinion of the Apex Court of the land in the case of Baluram vs. P.
Chellathangam: (2015) 13 SCC 579, opinion of a Coordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of M/s Omway Buildstate Pvt. Ltd. V.
Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, decided on 11th June, 2014 and its
confirmation by the Division Bench, declining intra court appeal (DBSAW
No.279/2012):Rajesh Agarwal Vs. M/s Omway Buildstate Pvt.
Ltd. And Ors, decided along with connected intra court appeal (DBSAW
No.222/2012): on 11th June, 2014.
22. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their
assistance scanned the materials available on record so also gave my
thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar.
23. Indisputably, the petitioner assailing the legality, validity and
correctness of the acquisition proceedings of the subject land involved
herein instituted writ application SBCWP No. 231/1975, adjudicated
upon vide order dated 1st July, 2008, upholding the acquisition
proceedings, holding thus:
"The additional agreement Annexure-R4/1 clearly
shows that the respondent No.4 housing society has
purchased the disputed land from the sole
petitioner late Shri Jagannath vide agreement
dated 21st January, 1976 and additional agreement
dated 08.05.1987 and paid the entire sale
consideration to him as per the details given in the
additional agreement. Most of the payment has
been made through Cheques and affidavit duly
signed by Jagannath and attested by Notary Public
is also on the record which clearly shows that the
land, in dispute, was sold by the petitioner
Jagannath to the respondent No.4 housing society
in the year 1976. The order dated 30th December,
1985, passed by the Additional Collector (South),
Agriculture Land Conversion, Jaipur (Annexure-
R4/4) also shows that the land, in dispute, along-
(D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM)
(12 of 30) [CW-11547/2017]
with other land was converted from agriculture to
residential scheme. The land conversion and
regularization order was passed by the State
Government also vide order dated 18th January,
1990, a reference of which has been given in the
letter dated 24th January, 1990 (Annexure R4/3)
whereby the State Government accorded its
sanction for change of land use of the disputed land
in the master plan also. The respondent No.4
housing society filed the application under Section
90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act before the
Jaipur Development Authority. The Competent
Officer/Authorized Officer, Zone B-I, Jaipur
Development Authority, Jaipur, vide its order dated
9th July, 2001, has already passed an order under
Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act.
In view of the above, it is apparent that the
petitioners have lost their interest in the disputed
land and, in these circumstances, the petitioners
have no right over the disputed land and they
cannot be said to be aggrieved persons to maintain
the present writ petition. This is a case where the
respondent No.4 housing society chalked out the
residential scheme known as Siddharth Nagar and
allotted plots to its members, who have already
raised constructions, which is clear from the order
of the Authorized Officer passed under Section
90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and the
respondent JDA is now required to proceed further
in the matter by issuing lease-deeds to the
members of the respondent No.4 housing society.
In view of the above discussions, I find that the
writ petition filed on behalf of petitioner is liable to
be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed with
no order as to costs."
24. On the intra-court appeal (DBSAW No.1376/2008), instituted
by the petitioner, the Division Bench wiping out the
observations/directions in favour of the respondent-Society, held
thus:
"20. The relief sought for by the appellants being the
same and identical to that of involved and prayed for in
other writ petitions including Writ Petition No.2090/1987
titled Hathroi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited. Vs.
(D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM)
(13 of 30) [CW-11547/2017]
State of Rajasthan which cam to be dismissed on 29 th
August, 1996 and Civil Special Appeal No. 926/1996 and
Special Leave Petitions Nos. 3690-94 of 1981 already
stood adjudicated and attained finality vide judgment of
the Apex Court, maintaining the order of the learned
Single Judge and the Division Bench. In view of the
acquisition proceedings being upheld and maintained up to
the Supreme Court as noticed above, the appellants are
not found entitled to any relief as prayed for in the writ
petition. No other point or legal issue, as prayed for, was
urged before us.
21. so far as the observations made by the learned Single
Judge in favour of the Respondent No.4 is concerned,
these have not been rebutted by the Jaipur Development
Authority or the appellants and the appellants have also
not placed on record any substantial evidence to disturb
it. In the totality of the circumstances, we find that the
land has already been acquired and the award has been
passed. The acquisition proceedings have attained finality.
The acquisition proceedings have also been upheld up to
the Supreme Court. Therefore, we are of the opinion that
the appeal having no merit deserves to be dismissed and
it stands dismissed accordingly."
25. By order dated 2nd April, 2010, dismissing the intra-court appeal
(DBSAW) No. 253/2010; State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Rameshwar
Prasad & Ors., against the very same order dated 1 st July, 2008,
Division Bench of this Court, held thus;
"We have heard rival submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully.
The question is as to whether learned Single Judge was
correct in making observations and issuing directions in
favour of non-petitioner-cooperative society in a
challenge to the land acquisition proceedings. It was a
petition by land holder challenging land acquisition
proceedings. In view of grounds raised and challenge
made, learned Single Judge was expected to decide the
matter accordingly. However, while deciding the writ
petition regarding challenge to the land acquisition,
certain observations and directions have been made in
favour of the non-petitioner No.4-cooperative society as
if it is a writ petition by them. By virtue of certain
observations and directions, there exists self
(D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM)
(14 of 30) [CW-11547/2017]
contradiction in the judgment of the learned Single
Judge. The writ petition was dismissed regarding
challenge to the land acquisition holding it to be legal.
Once the land acquisition has been confirmed, land vests
in the government/ JDA but ignoring this, observations
and directions in contradiction were made for issuance of
lease deeds in favour of members of respondent No.4-
cooperative society, which otherwise not prayed in the
writ petition. It virtually nullifies the right of the State
and the JDA on acquisition of land. The matter could
have been discussed in detail but in view of submissions
of counsel for the society that those
observations/directions made in the impugned judgment
pertaining to respondent No.4-society have been wiped
out by the coordinate Bench of this Court. We find that
JDA and the Land Acquisition Officer filed a review
petition against the judgment of coordinate Bench
deciding the appeal against the same judgment of learned
Single Judge. Therein certain clarifications have been
made to give liberty to the JDA to proceed in
accordance with law. We find that State has
independently filed an appeal though along with the JDA
and Land Acquisition Officer, however, appeal has been
filed by the State Government for the first time. It has
to be addressed on the issues raised so as to make things
very clear. The State Government has rightly pleaded
that there exist self contradiction in judgment affecting
right of the State. On one hand, acquisition has been
upheld vesting rights of the land in favour of appellant
and, on the other hand, a direction in favour of society
for issuance of lease in favour of the members of the
society, that too in a writ petition filed by the land
holder. No observation or direction could have been made
in favour of non-petitioner society, otherwise, it becomes
a writ petition on behalf of non-petitioner-society and
that too when the reply given by the non-petitioner
society is not made available to the petitioners JDA and
State. The learned Single Judge should have restricted
its judgment to the extent of challenge in the writ
petition, however, in the present matter, the learned
Single Judge exceeded to his jurisdiction in making
observations/ directions in favour of non-petitioner
society affecting rights of other co-respondents State
and the JDA. In view of aforesaid, the observations/
directions need to be taken out and is to be set aside.
We, accordingly, make it clear that any observations or
direction in regard to respondent No.4-society cannot be
kept as a part of the impugned judgment thus the
(D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM)
(15 of 30) [CW-11547/2017]
observations and directions in favour of non-petitioner
No.4 society deserve are set aside. This is more so when
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the society has
stated that in the review petition filed by the JDA and
the Land Acquisition Officer, observations and directions
in favour of the society have been wiped out.
On acquisition of land, if any party has a right or claim
they would be at liberty to take legal recourse for their
rights.
The outcome of aforesaid is that challenge to the
acquisition of land in dispute is held to be legal and to
that extent judgment of the learned Single Judge is
confirmed however, observations and directions given in
favour of the respondent No.1-society have been set
aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent
indicated above."
26. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent-Society staking its
claim on the subject land involved herein in the backdrop of the
observations/directions made by the Division Bench in intra-court
appeal No. 253/2010, instituted suit proceedings (Civil Suit No.
154/2012): New Pinkcity Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs.
Rameshwar Prasad and Ors. The suit was dismissed sustaining an
application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) read with Section 16/151 CPC,
vide order dated 6th October, 2012. Admittedly, the order has attained
finality as the same was not challenged any further by the respondent-
Society.
27. The fact that a Reference Petition was also instituted by the
respondent-Society before the Tribunal being Reference No.
97/2003:New Pinkcity Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs.
Jaipur Development Authority, staking its claim on the subject land
involved herein, which resulted into dismissal vide order dated 12 th
June, 2009, and that too has attained finality for the same was not
challenged any further; is also not disputed. Thus, the respondent-
Society having staked its claim on the very same subject land involved
(D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM)
(16 of 30) [CW-11547/2017]
herein, unsuccessfully before the Civil Court as well as the Tribunal as is
evident from the materials available on record; instituted an application
for impleadment to the pending Reference Petition instituted by the
petitioner.
28. In the case of Vidur Impax and Traders Private Limited
and ors.(supra), explaining the expressions "necessary party" and
"proper party", the Apex Court of the land culled out broad principles
which should govern disposal of an application for impleadment, on a
survey of earlier opinions, observing thus:
"41.Though there is apparent conflict in the observations
made in some of the aforementioned judgments, the broad
principles which should govern disposal of an application
for impleadment are:
41.1. The Court can, at any stage of the proceedings,
either on an application made by the parties or otherwise,
direct impleadment of any person as party, who ought to
have been joined as Plaintiff or Defendant or whose
presence before the Court is necessary for effective and
complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit.
41.2. A necessary party is the person who ought to be
joined as party to the suit and in whose absence an
effective decree cannot be passed by the Court.
41.3. A proper party is a person whose presence would
enable the Court to completely, effectively and properly
adjudicate upon all matters and issues, though he may not
be a person in favour of or against whom a decree is to be
made.
41.4. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary
party, the Court does not have the jurisdiction to order
his impleadment against the wishes of the Plaintiff.
41.5. In a suit for specific performance, the Court can
order impleadment of a purchaser whose conduct is above
board, and who files application for being joined as party
within reasonable time of his acquiring knowledge about
the pending litigation.
41.6. However, if the applicant is guilty of contumacious
conduct or is beneficiary of a clandestine transaction or a
(D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM)
(17 of 30) [CW-11547/2017]
transaction made by the owner of the suit property in
violation of the restraint order passed by the Court or the
application is unduly delayed then the Court will be fully
justified in declining the prayer for impleadment.
43. We are in complete agreement with the Delhi High
Court that the application for impleadment filed by the
Appellants was highly belated. Although, the Appellants
have pleaded that at the time of execution of the
agreements for sale by Respondent No. 2 in their favour in
February 1997, they did not know about the suit filed by
Respondent No. 1, it is difficult, if not impossible, to
accept their statement because the smallness of time gap
between the agreements for sale and the sale deeds
executed by Respondent No. 2 in favour of the Appellants
and the execution of agreement for sale by the Appellants
in favour of Bhagwati Developers would make any person of
ordinary prudence to believe that Respondent No. 2, the
Appellants and Bhagwati Developers had entered into
these transactions with the sole object of frustrating
agreement for sale dated 13.9.1988 executed in favour of
Respondent No. 1 and the suit pending before the Delhi
High Court. In any case, the Appellants will be deemed to
have become aware of the same on receipt of summons in
Suit No. 161/1999 filed by Respondent No. 2 for annulment
of the agreements for sale and the sale deeds in which
Respondent No. 2 had clearly made a mention of Suit No.
425/1993 filed by Respondent No. 1 for specific
performance of agreement for sale dated 13.12.1988 and
injunction or at least when the learned Single Judge of the
Delhi High Court entertained IA No. 625/2001 filed by
Respondent No. 1 and restrained Respondent Nos. 2 and 4
from transferring possession of the suit property to the
Appellants. However, in the application for impleadment
filed by them, the Appellants did not offer any tangible
explanation as to why the application for impleadment was
filed only on 4.2.2008 i.e. after 7 years of the passing of
injunction order dated 22.1.2001 and, in our considered
view, this constituted a valid ground for declining their
prayer for impleadment as parties to Suit No. 425/1993.
44. The ratio of the judgment in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal
(supra), on which heavy reliance has been placed by the
learned senior counsel for the Appellants, does not help his
clients. In the present case, the agreements for sale and
the sale deeds were executed by Respondent No. 2 in
favour of the Appellants in a clandestine manner and in
violation of the injunction granted by the High Court.
(D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM)
(18 of 30) [CW-11547/2017]
Therefore, it cannot be said that any valid title or interest
has been acquired by the Appellants in the suit property
and the ratio of the judgment in Surjit Singh v. Harbans
Singh (supra) would squarely apply to the Appellants case
because they are claiming right on the basis of
transactions made in defiance of the restraint order
passed by the High Court. The suppression of material
facts by Bhagwati Developers and the Appellants from the
Calcutta High Court, which was persuaded to pass orders in
their favour, takes the Appellants out of the category of
bona fide purchaser. Therefore, their presence is neither
required to decide the controversy involved in the suit
filed by Respondent No. 1 nor required to pass an effective
decree."
29. In the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal (supra), the
Apex Court of the land in no uncertain terms held that "necessary
party" or "proper party" would be one, who has direct or legal interest
in the litigation. At this juncture it will be profitable to take note of the
text of para 6 and 8, which reads thus:
"6. Sub-rule(2) of Rule 10 gives a wide discretion to the
Court to meet every case of defect of parties and is not
affected by the inaction of the plaintiff to bring the
necessary parties on record. The question of impleadment
of a party has to be decided on the touch stone of Order
I Rule 10 which provides that only a necessary or a proper
party may be added. A necessary party is one without
whom no order can be made effectively. A proper party is
one in whose absence an effective order can be made but
whose presence is necessary for a complete and final
decision on the question involved in the proceeding. The
addition of parties is generally not a question of initial
jurisdiction of the Court but of a judicial discretion which
has to be exercised in view of all the facts and
circumstances of a particular case.
8. The case really turns on the true construction of the
Rule in particular the meaning of the words "whose
presence before the Court may be necessary in order to
enable the Court effectually and completely to
adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in
the suit." The Court is empowered to join a person whose
presence is necessary for the prescribed purpose and
cannot under the Rule direct the addition of a person
whose presence is not necessary for that purpose. If the
(D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM)
(19 of 30) [CW-11547/2017]
intervener has a cause of action against the plaintiff
relating to the subject-matter of . the existing action,
the Court has power to join intervener so as to give
effect to the primary object of the order which is to
avoid multiplicity of actions."
30. In the case Mumbai International Airport Private Limited
(supra), while dealing with the issue of discretion of Court to strike out
or add parties with specific illustrations in the backdrop of Order 1 Rule
10(2) CPC, the Supreme Court held thus:
"22. Let us consider the scope and ambit of Order 1 of
Rule 10(2) CPC regarding striking out or adding parties.
The said sub-rule is not about the right of a non-party
to be impleaded as a party, but about the judicial
discretion of the court to strike out or add parties at
any stage of a proceeding. The discretion under the
sub-rule can be exercised either suo moto or on the
application of the plaintiff or the defendant, or on an
application of a person who is not a party to the suit.
The court can strike out any party who is improperly
joined. The court can add anyone as a plaintiff or as a
defendant if it finds that he is a necessary party or
proper party. Such deletion or addition can be without
any conditions or subject to such terms as the court
deems fit to impose. In exercising its judicial discretion
under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code, the court will of
course act according to reason and fair play and not
according to whims and caprice.
23. This Court in Ramji Dayawala & Sons (P) Ltd. v.
Invest Import reiterated in SCC 80 p.96, para 20 the
classic definition of 'discretion' by Lord Mansfield in R.
v. Wilkes 1770 (98) ER 327 that 'discretion'
"when applied to courts of justice, means sound
discretion guided by law. It must be governed by
rule, not by humour; it must not be arbitrary, vague,
and fanciful, 'but legal and regular'.
24. We may now give some illustrations regarding
exercise of discretion under the said Sub-Rule.
24.1. If a plaintiff makes an application for impleading a
person as a defendant on the ground that he is a
necessary party, the court may implead him having
(D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM)
(20 of 30) [CW-11547/2017]
regard to the provisions of Rules 9 and 10(2) of Order
1. If the claim against such a person is barred by
limitation, it may refuse to add him as a party and even
dismiss the suit for non-joinder of a necessary party.
24.2. If the owner of a tenanted property enters into
an agreement for sale of such property without physical
possession, in a suit for specific performance by the
purchaser, the tenant would not be a necessary party.
But if the suit for specific performance is filed with an
additional prayer for delivery of physical possession
from the tenant in possession, then the tenant will be a
necessary party in so far as the prayer for actual
possession.
24.3. If a person makes an application for being
impleaded contending that he is a necessary party, and
if the court finds that he is a necessary party, it can
implead him. If the plaintiff opposes such impleadment,
then instead of impleading such a party, who is found to
be a necessary party, the court may proceed to dismiss
the suit by holding that the applicant was a necessary
party and in his absence the plaintiff was not entitled
to any relief in the suit.
24.4. If an application is made by a plaintiff for
impleading someone as a proper party, subject to
limitation, bonafides etc., the court will normally
implead him, if he is found to be a proper party. On the
other hand, if a non-party makes an application seeking
impleadment as a proper party and court finds him to be
a proper party, the court may direct his addition as a
defendant; but if the court finds that his addition will
alter the nature of the suit or introduce a new cause of
action, it may dismiss the application even if he is found
to be a proper party, if it does not want to widen the
scope of the specific performance suit; or the court
may direct such applicant to be impleaded as a proper
party, either unconditionally or subject to terms. For
example, if 'D' claiming to be a co-owner of a suit
property, enters into an agreement for sale of his share
in favour of 'P' representing that he is the co-owner
with half share, and 'P' files a suit for specific
performance of the said agreement of sale in respect of
the undivided half share, the court may permit the
other co-owner who contends that 'D' has only one-
fourth share, to be impleaded as an additional
defendant as a proper party, and may examine the issue
(D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM)
(21 of 30) [CW-11547/2017]
whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific
performance of the agreement in respect of half a
share or only one-fourth share; alternatively the court
may refuse to implead the other co-owner and leave
open the question in regard to the extent of share of
the vendor-defendant to be decided in an independent
proceeding by the other co-owner, or the plaintiff;
alternatively the court may implead him but subject to
the term that the dispute, if any, between the
impleaded co-owner and the original defendant in regard
to the extent of the share will not be the subject
matter of the suit for specific performance, and that it
will decide in the suit, only the issues relating to
specific performance, that is whether the defendant
executed the agreement/contract and whether such
contract should be specifically enforced."
31. In the case of M/s Omway Buildestate Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
(supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court while considering the effect of
Section 4 of the Act of 1976, in the face of text of Section 48 of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, held thus:
"Taking note of Taking note of judgments (supra), in the
opinion of this Court, after issuance of Gazette
notification U/S.48 of LA Act the very inception of
acquisition proceedings stands withdrawn & effect of S.4
of the Act, 1976 ceases to subsist and slate becomes
clean and such transaction/transfers of lands which took
place during the interregnum period are held to be valid
even against the State Government & in general for all
practical purposes; however it will not preclude the State
Govt., if intends to acquire the subject land afresh at a
later stage, butthat too by initiating acquisition
proceedings afresh if required for public purposes.
As regards judgment on which Counsel for respondent
placed reliance in Meera Sahni Vs. Lt. Governor (2009(8) SCC 177), it was a case where the land was purchased after declaration of acquisition U/s 6, but no notification U/s 48 which empowers State Government to withdraw the land from acquisition, was issued/published in gazette and in such circumstances, examining scope of restriction regarding transfer of land, imposed U/s 4, it was held that such transaction being void would not be recognized by State Government but in instant case, on the date when the subject land was purchased, such transfer of (D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM) (22 of 30) [CW-11547/2017] land might be void qua State Government, but after issuance of notification U/s 48 of LA Act petitioners became holders of subject land & competent enough to submit their application U/s 90-B(3) of LR Act. Thus, the sale might be void qua State Government; at one stage but after issuance of notification by State Government U/s 48 withdrawing subject land from acquisition, such transfer of lands certainly be considered to be valid in general for all practical purposes and whatever rights being available to the land owners are available to the land holders."
32. Intra-court appeal instituted against the opinion of the learned single judge, in the case of M/s Omway Buildestate Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.(supra); DBSAW No. 279/2012; was declined vide judgment dated 11th June, 2014, affirming the opinion, observing thus:
"16. The purchase of land in the face of prohibition and restriction imposed by Section 3 and 4 of the Act of 1976, has to be examined in the backdrop of the fact that the State Government by publication of notification dated 1st December, 2006, under Section 48 of the Act of 1894, released the land in dispute from acquisition. A conjoint reading of the provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the Act of 1976, in juxtaposition to Section 48 of the Act of 1894, would reflect that the prohibition and restriction of transfer imposed is with a view to prevent the mischief during acquisition proceedings and therefore, any transfer of the land, sought to be acquired, without previous permission, would be void qua the State Government, but the same principle cannot be applied in a situation when the same land has been de- acquired in exercise of power under Section 48 of the Act of 1894."
33. In the case of Baluram (supra), the Apex Court of the land while dealing with the issue of impleadment of a party in a case of specific performance, held thus:
"13. After due consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that the High Court erred in interfering with the order of the trial Court impleading the Appellant as a party Defendant. Admittedly, the Appellant is a beneficiary of the Trust and under the provisions of the Trusts Act, the Trustee has to act reasonably in exercise (D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM) (23 of 30) [CW-11547/2017] of his right of alienation under the terms of the trust deed. Appellant cannot thus be treated as a stranger. No doubt, it may be permissible for the Appellant to file a separate suit, as suggested by Respondent No. 1, but the beneficiary could certainly be held to be a proper party. There is no valid reason to decline his prayer to be impleaded as a party to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Order I Rule 10(2), Code of Civil Procedure enables, the Court to add a necessary or proper party so as to "effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit".
14. In Mumbai International Airport (supra) this Court observed:
13. The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the Plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the Plaintiff But this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure ("the Code", for short), which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties. The said sub-rule is extracted below:
10. (2) Court may strike out or add parties.--The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as Plaintiff or Defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as Plaintiff or Defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.
14. The said provision makes it clear that a court may, at any stage of the proceedings (including suits for specific performance), either upon or even without any application, and on such terms as may appear to it to be just, direct that any of the following persons may be added as a party: (a) any person who ought to have been joined as Plaintiff or Defendant, but not added; or (b) any person (D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM) (24 of 30) [CW-11547/2017] whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit. In short, the court is given the discretion to add as a party, any person who is found to be a necessary party or proper party.
15. A "necessary party" is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court.
If a "necessary party" is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A "proper party" is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the Plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit property, after the suit is decided against the Plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
19. Referring to suits for specific performance, this Court in Kasturi [MANU/SC/0319/2005 : (2005) 6 SCC 733], held that the following persons are to be considered as necessary parties: (i) the parties to the contract which is sought to be enforced or their legal representatives; (ii) a transferee of the property which is the subject-matter of the contract. This Court also explained that a person who has a direct interest in the subject-matter of the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale may be impleaded as a proper party on his application Under Order 1 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure. This Court concluded that a purchaser of the suit property subsequent to the suit agreement would be a necessary party as he would be affected if he had purchased it with or without notice of the contract, but a person who claims a title adverse to that of the Defendant vendor will not be a necessary party.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
22. Let us consider the scope and ambit of Order 1 (D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM) (25 of 30) [CW-11547/2017] Rule 10(2) Code of Civil Procedure regarding striking out or adding parties. The said sub-rule is not about the right of a non-party to be impleaded as a party, but about the judicial discretion of the court to strike out or add parties at any stage of a proceeding. The discretion under the sub-rule can be exercised either suo motu or on the application of the Plaintiff or the Defendant, or on an application of a person who is not a party to the suit. The court can strike out any party who is improperly joined. The court can add anyone as a Plaintiff or as a Defendant if it finds that he is a necessary party or proper party. Such deletion or addition can be without any conditions or subject to such terms as the court deems fit to impose. In exercising its judicial discretion Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code, the court will of course act according to reason and fair play and not according to whims and caprice.
15. In the present case, the Appellant could not be held to be a stranger being beneficiary of the Trust property. The trial Court was justified in impleading him as a party. The High Court erred in interfering with the order of the trial Court."
34. Section 3 and 4 of the Act of 1976, contemplating prohibition and restrictions on transfer of land acquired or in relation to which the acquisition proceedings have been initiated, reads thus:
"3. Prohibition on transfer of lands acquired by State Government.- No person shall purport to transfer by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any land or part thereof situated in the State of Rajasthan, which has been acquired by the Government under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 11953, or under any other law providing for acquisition of land for a public purpose.
4. Restriction on transfer of lands in relation to which acquisition proceedings have been initiated.- No person shall, except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority, transfer or purport to transfer by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any land or part thereof situated in the State of Rajasthan, which is proposed to be acquired in connection with the scheme and in relation to which a declaration to the effect that such land or part thereof is needed for a public purpose having been made by the State Government under section 6 of the (D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM) (26 of 30) [CW-11547/2017] Rajasthan Lan Acquisition Act, 1953 or under the corresponding provision of any other law providing for acquisition of land for a public purpose, and the State Government has not withdrawn from the acquisition under section 48 of that Act or under any such law."
35. From the factual matrix as has emerged from the pleadings of the parties and materials available on record, reflects that the respondent-Society admittedly instituted a Civil Suit staking its claim on the very same subject land involved herein and the Civil Suit was dismissed in view of the application instituted by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11(d) read with Section 16/151 CPC vide order dated 6th October, 2012. It is also not in dispute that Reference Petition instituted by the respondent-Society was also declined by the Tribunal vide order dated 12 th June, 2009 (Reference No.97/2003). Both the proceedings on the Civil Suit as well as Reference Petition, have attained finality for the respondent-Society did not challenge those adjudications any further.
36. The issue as to withdrawal of the suit proceedings in Civil Suit No. 343/2018: Pt. Jagannath and Ors. Vs. Suresh Chand Jain and Ors., is still pending consideration before the trial Court. In view of the order dated 18th July, 2018, while adjudicating upon an application under Section 151 read with Order 23 Rule 1(5) CPC, the trial Court has sustained the suit proceedings, partly allowing the application while permitting plaintiff No. 1/2 (brother of the petitioner), to continue the suit proceedings, restoring the Civil Suit which was stated to be withdrawn by the respondent- Society. That apart, permission declined to the petitioner to continue to the suit proceedings, is pending consideration before (D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM) (27 of 30) [CW-11547/2017] this Court in SBCWP No. 4469/2019, with an interim protection, restraining the Court below to proceed further as would be evident from the order made on the above writ application No.4469/2019.
37. In the case of M/s Omway Buildstate Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. (supra), this Court dealt with the issue with reference to Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in juxtaposition to Section 3 and 4 of the Act of 1976. Thus, the opinion was entirely in a different factual matrix and provisions of law.
38. In the case of Baluram (supra), the Apex Court of the land examined the controversy as to impleadment of the appellant-Baluram in the factual matrix wherein the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, acting as trustees of "Subbaiah Paniker Family Welfare Trust" entered into the agreement for sell of suit property in favour of the plaintiff. The price of the property was settled and appellant-Baluram sought impleadment as defendant staking that he would suffer prejudice being beneficiaries of the Trust. Thus, the factual matrix of the case referred to and relied upon, is entirely different and distinguishable from the one at hand.
39. Applying the principles deducible from the opinions referred to and relied upon by the counsel for the parties as taken note of hereinabove; it can safely be said that the respondent-Society did stake its claim on the same subject land involved herein, before the Civil Court as well as by institution of the Reference Petition, before the Tribunal; unsuccessfully, as would be evident from the order dated 6 th October, 2012 and 12th June, 2009.
40. A glance of the order made by the Division Bench of this Court while declining intra court appeal of the State of Rajasthan and ors.:(DBSAW No.253/2010), specifically observed thus:
(D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM) (28 of 30) [CW-11547/2017] "On acquisition of land, if any party has a right or claim they would be at liberty to take legal recourse for their rights."
41. Thus, the respondent-Society after having exercised its right and having taken recourse to legal remedy unsuccessfully and proceedings attaining finality; cannot be permitted to be impleaded as a party to the Reference proceedings instituted by the petitioner in the factual matrix of the case at hand.
42. By now it is well settled that if Court finds that addition of a party will introduce a new cause of action, it ought to dismiss the application seeking impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. In the factual matrix of a case at hand, the respondent-Society intends to re-agitate once again, the same subject matter, for the third time, after having lost on the same claim in the suit proceedings as well as in Reference Petition, as taken note of in the foregoing paragraphs herein above. Further, it is an admitted fact that the subject land involved herein, was purchased vide alleged agreement for sale dated 21 January 1976, subsequent to notices issued under section 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894, in the year 1969 and 1973, respectively. Thus, contrary to restrictions as contemplated under Section 3 and 4 of the Act of 1976. No notification under Section 48 of the Act of 1894, which empowers the State Government to withdraw the subject land from acquisition, was issued. The Reference Petition is not with reference to enforcement of the contract dated 21 st January, 1976, which is the basis of the claim of the respondent-Society. That apart, several opportunities were allowed to the respondent-
(D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM) (29 of 30) [CW-11547/2017] Society to place on record the aforesaid contract, but the respondent-Society failed to do so for reasons best known to it. Be that as it may, applying the principles deducible from the opinions referred to and relied upon by the counsel for the parties to the factual matrix of the case at hand while considering the attendant facts and circumstances in totality; it is apparent that the respondent-Society is neither a necessary nor a proper party, whose presence is essential for effective and complete adjudication of the pending Reference Petition. The respondent- Society has already availed of legal remedy with reference to its claim on the subject land by institution of Civil Suit and Reference Petition, unsuccessfully. Furthermore, the respondent-Society is guilty of transactions contrary to restrictions as contemplated under Section 3 and 4 of the Act of 1976.
43. For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the conspicuous factual matrix of the case; the writ application merits acceptance and is hereby allowed.
44. In the result, impugned orders dated 15th March, 2016 and 17th May, 2017, made by the Tribunal in Reference Petition No. 205/2009; are hereby quashed.
45. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J pcg (D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM) (30 of 30) [CW-11547/2017] FINAL RESERVED JUDGMENT S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11547/2017 (D.B. SAW/760/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:56:32 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)