Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 58 (GAU)

MOULAVI HALLIMUDDIN v. MD. JAMIRUDDIN

2015-01-21

HRISHIKESH ROY

body2015
JUDGMENT AND ORDER Heard Mr. M. Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner (plaintiff). Also heard Ms. S. Senapati, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 4 to 14 (defendants). 2. In the original plaint filed by Moulabi Halimuddin, Md. Jamiruddin was the principal defendant and Md. Hassan Uddin and Musstt. Thaibi Bibi were arrayed by the plaintiff as proforma defendants. In the suit, the plaintiff claimed right, title and interest over the suit land, described in the Schedule-I to the plaint and further declaration was sought that the defendant No.1 has no right over the Schedule-I land. The plaintiff also claimed the consequential relief of the acquisition compensation lying in the custody of the Collector, Cachar, Silchar for the Schedule-II land, acquired for the ONGC. 3. A dispute pertaining to apportionment of compensation amongst different sets of claimants in the L.A. Case No. 7/87-88 arose and accordingly the matter was referred under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the decision on the right of the claimants. The Misc. L.A. Case No.49/1990 was accordingly registered but through the impugned order dated 5.8.1997, the claim of Late Wahizuddin, the predecessor of the plaintiff/petitioner Hallimuddin was rejected. Challenging this decision the M.A.F.213/1997 was filed before the High Court. 4. The M.A.F. 213/1997 was decided on 11.4.2002 (Annexure-3) where this Court noted that the entire interest of Wahizuddin (predecessor of the plaintiff) in the Entry No.40 in 2nd R.S. Patta No.17 was sold away and his name was struck off on 11.4.1988. Therefore Entry No.40 was amended and some other names in addition to the name of Wahizuddin was included in respect of Entry No.40. Since conclusive proof of title over the acquired land was found missing, the High Court directed the parties to obtain Title declaration from the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Consequently the Title Suit No.83/2004 was filed by the petitioner Hallimuddin as a successor of Late Wahizuddin. 5. The impleadment applications were filed in the suit by Abdul Rasid Choudhury and 10 others and in the application 433/19 dated 23.8.2005, the applicants claimed that they are the successors of Nawab Ali Choudhury. The applicants claimed to be in possession of the suit land through inheritance/purchase. The impleadment prayer was allowed by the learned Civil Judge through the impugned judgment dated 21.3.2006. The applicants claimed to be in possession of the suit land through inheritance/purchase. The impleadment prayer was allowed by the learned Civil Judge through the impugned judgment dated 21.3.2006. In its order, the Court noted that the applicants were in possession of land measuring 1 Bigha 12 Katha 1 Chatak in Dag No.35 which was purchased by the applicants’ father by a registered Sale Deed executed on 13.2.1950 and mutation was granted thereafter. The objection of the plaintiff that the impleadment was sought on collateral ground as the defendant No.1 failed to file his W.S. in due time and was not accepted and considering that joining of defendants will facilitate effective adjudication of the matter, the prayer for impleadment of additional defendants was allowed. 6. Mr. M. Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is for the plaintiff to decide as to who should be arrayed as defendants under Order 1 Rule 3 of the CPC and the Counsel argues that the impleaded defendants are arrayed unnecessarily. 7. But I find from the judgment in the M.A.F. 213/1997 that the plaintiff’s father Wahizuddin sold away his entire interest in the land and his name was struck off on 11.4.1988. The applicants claim their title on Schedule-I land as successors of Nawab Ali Choudhury, who purchased the land from one Khirode Singha and the mutation of the land was granted more than 100 years ago. On this basis they claim to be in possession. In this backdrop it prima facie appears that defendants addition will facilitate effective adjudication of the suit. 8. Arguing for relegating the respondents/defendants to seek remedies in other forum, Mr. M. Singh, the learned Counsel refers to the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”) to contend that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in disputes relating to land acquisition under Section 63 of the 2013 Act. In this context, it must be noted that it is the revision petitioner who is the plaintiff in the Civil Court. More importantly the main prayer in the suit is claim of title which can’t be decided effectively by any authority under the 2013 Act. The claim to a share of the acquisition compensation is only a consequential relief dependent upon declaration of title by the competent Civil Court. More importantly the main prayer in the suit is claim of title which can’t be decided effectively by any authority under the 2013 Act. The claim to a share of the acquisition compensation is only a consequential relief dependent upon declaration of title by the competent Civil Court. It may further be noted that in the M.A.F. 213/1997, this Court permitted the parties to obtain declaration of title to the land in question from the competent Civil Court and since the suit is primarily for declaration of title, I hold that objection raised by the petitioner under Section 63 of the 2013 Act is not tenable. 9. For the above reasoning and finding no irregularity in the impleadment order passed by the learned Trial Court, I see no basis to allow this Revision petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. However the parties are left to bear their own cost of the proceeding.