Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 294 (RAJ)

Roopchand v. District Collector, Alwar

2023-01-25

INDERJEET SINGH

body2023
ORDER 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 01.09.2022 of the learned trial Court, whereby the application filed on behalf of the applicant-respondents under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. was allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit before the learned trial Court against the respondent No. 1 to 3 for declaration and permanent injunction. During pendency of the said suit, the respondent No.4 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading him as party-defendant in the suit proceedings on the ground that the land belongs to the Chharagah land and the nature of the land is Chharagah land, The respondent No.4 has also filed a writ petition before this Court (D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.7844/2022) in which this Court has directed the respondent No.4 to submit a representation before the Public Land Protection Cell (District Magistrate), it was further mentioned in the application that the said representation is pending before the District Magistrate, therefore the petitioner is necessary party. The learned trial Court allowed the application vide its order dated 01.09.2022. 3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 01.09.2022, the petitioners-plaintiffs have filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 01.09.2022. 4. Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submitted that the land in dispute has already been converted into Abaadi land in the year 1972. Counsel further submits that the petitioner-plaintiff has already constructed the house and residing in the said house, however, the respondents are going to demolish his house. Counsel further submits that the respondent No.4 is neither necessary nor proper party in the suit proceedings and prayed for allowing the petitions. 5. In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in the matter of Mohamed Hussain Gulam Ali Shariffi vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. reported in (2020) 14 SCC 392 . 6. Learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the land in dispute belongs to the Chharagah land and therefore the applicant who has also filed a public interest litigation as well as an application before the learned trial Court is a necessary party. 7. reported in (2020) 14 SCC 392 . 6. Learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the land in dispute belongs to the Chharagah land and therefore the applicant who has also filed a public interest litigation as well as an application before the learned trial Court is a necessary party. 7. In support of his contentions, counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited Vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and Ors, (Civil Appeal No.4900/2010) reported in (2010) 7 SCC 417 . 8. Counsel further relied upon the another judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court, at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in the matter of Ashok Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Writ Petition no.10493/2022). 9. Counsel further replied upon another the judgment passed by this Court Bench at Jaipur in the matter of Prabhat Vs. The Board of Revenue (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1347/1986). 10. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. These writ petitions filed by the petitioner-plaintiff deserves to be allowed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioner has filed suit for permanent injunction and declaration against the State respondents and whether the nature of the suit property is Chharagah land or not can only be decide after recording the evidence before the learned trial Court and the said respondents are duly represented before the learned trial Court; secondly, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 has already been filed by the respondents before the Civil Court which is still pending; thirdly, in my considered view, the respondent No.4 is neither necessary nor proper party of the suit proceedings as he is a stranger to the suit proceeding; therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, no case is made out for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. Hence these writ petitions stand allowed. The order dated 01.09.2022 passed by the trial Court in both the writ petitions are quashed and set aside. However, any observations given in this judgment shall not effect the merits of the case before the learned trial Court. Copy of this order be separately placed in the connected file.