Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 757 (GAU)

Sharathi Muchahary v. Ratan Basumatary

2023-06-28

MANISH CHOUDHURY

body2023
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. B.K. Sen, learned counsel for the applicants; Ms. C. Newme, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1-writ petitioner; Ms. R.B. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, BTC for the opposite party nos. 2 & 3; and Mr. S. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 4 & 5. 2. The instant interlocutory application has been preferred by two applicants seeking their impleadment as party-respondents in the connected writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 916/2020. The opposite party no. 1 as the writ petitioner has preferred the connected writ petition challenging the legality and validity of an order dated 19.11.2019 passed by the Secretary, BTC whereby the Secretary, BTC has cancelled the allotment and settlement of a plot of land measuring 2 Kathas 10 Lessas, covered by Dag no. 3/378 and K.P. Patta no. 280, located at Village – Dangagaon, Sidli Revenue Cirlce, District – Chirang. The writ petitioner has contended therein that the said plot of land was in his name. 3. In the instant interlocutory application, the applicants have averred that the opposite party no. 1-writ petitioner has preferred the connected writ petition suppressing certain material facts and the opposite party no. 1-writ petitioner had, in fact, sold the plot of land in question at a total consideration of Rs. 4,40,000/-to the applicants herein in the year 2006 by executing a sale deed in favour of the applicants. As those facts have not been disclosed in the writ petition and participation of the applicants in the writ petition are necessary for proper and effective adjudication of the issues raised in the writ petition, the instant interlocutory application has been preferred by the applicants seeking their impleadment as party respondents in the connected writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 916/2020. 4. Ms. Newme, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1-writ petitioner has submitted that the opposite party no. 1-writ petitioner has no objection to the prayer for impleadment of the applicants in the writ petition. 5. Having regard to the statements and averments made in the instant interlocutory application, more particularly, paragraph nos. 3 & 4 thereof; and considering the fact that there is no objection from the opposite party no. 1-writ petitioner, the instant interlocutory application seeking impleadment of the two applicants as party respondent no. 5 and the party-respondent no. 6 in the connected writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 916/2020 is allowed.