Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 498 (UTT)

Khurram v. Collector/District Magistrate Hardwar

2024-07-20

VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA

body2024
JUDGMENT : VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, petitioners seek to set aside the order dated 13.07.2023 (Annexure-10) passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Roorkee in Civil Appeal No. 15/2023, State of Uttarakhand & another v. Mahtab & others. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a civil suit being O.S. No. 84 of 2023 against one Ajeem S/o Janilahi seeking a decree of permanent injunction in respect of the land in question; that, during the pendency of this suit, the parties to suit entered into a compromise and accordingly vide Award dated 13.05.2023, learned Lok Adalat decided the suit on the basis of compromise. 3. He would further submit that against the Award dated 13.05.2023 the respondents i.e. the State and the Nagar Panchayat preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 15/2023; that, the Ist Additional District Judge, Roorkee admitted the appeal and issued notice to the petitioners/plaintiffs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs would further submit that the respondents/appellants were not party to the suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs and had no locus standii to challenge the impugned order passed by the National Lok Adalat and, thus, it was obligatory on the part of the First Appellate Court Court to issue notices to the petitioners before admitting the appeal of the State and Nagar Panchayat but the First Appellate Court failed to do so and passed the impugned order against the principle of natural justice. 5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel would submit that the petitioners/plaintiffs mischievously filed the suit before the Trial Court and entered into compromise with the defendants and obtained the Award/Order by playing fraud upon the Court; that, no settlement could have been reached between the parties in respect of said land as the same was public purpose land which is owned by the State Government under the management of Nagar Panchayat; that the respondents/appellants were deliberately not made party to the suit, therefore, the Award passed by the National Lok Adalat was not binding upon the respondents/appellants and was thus challenged in appeal. 6. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the respondents/appellants filed the appeal and relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Gourimani vs. Narayan Tripathy, (2015) 2 ILR (Cuttack) 1202 and after hearing the respondents/appellants, the appeal was rightly admitted by the first appellate court. 7. 6. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the respondents/appellants filed the appeal and relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Gourimani vs. Narayan Tripathy, (2015) 2 ILR (Cuttack) 1202 and after hearing the respondents/appellants, the appeal was rightly admitted by the first appellate court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on file. 8. It is the case of the respondents/appellants that the land in respect of which the petitioners/plaintiffs had arrived at a settlement with the defendant is a public purpose land and that the Award was obtained by playing fraud upon the Lok Adalat without making the State and Nagar Panchayat as party to the suit, which was mandatory. The respondents/appellants, therefore, challenged the said Award in appeal wherein the 1st Additional District Judge, Roorkee, vide order dated 13.07.2023, admitted the appeal and issued notices to the petitioners. 9. In the opinion of this Court, no prejudice is caused to the petitioners/plaintiffs by the impugned order whereby simpliciter an order of admitting the appeal was passed. No stay order or any ad interim injunction order was passed in favour of the respondents/appellants. That apart, this Court finds that the impugned order was passed on 13.07.2023, thus, on the ground of laches also, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. In view of the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the writ petition. Same is hereby dismissed in limine.