Smt. Majidunnisa Abdul Rauf Khan ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 16793 Bom

                                                                         31-WP8449-2021.DOC




                        AGK




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 8449 OF 2021



                        Smt. Majidunnisa Abdul Rauf Khan &                  ...Petitioners
                        Others
                                 Versus
                        The State of Maharashtra & Others                 ...Respondents


                        Mr. Shrinivas Bobde, i/b Ms. Deepali Kedar, for the
                        Petitioners.
                        Mr. V.S. Gokhale, 'B' Panel Counsel, for Respondents Nos. 1 to
                        3-State.


                                               CORAM: Smt. Bharati Dangre, J.

DATED: 3rd December 2021

P.C.:-

Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL GANESH GANESH KULKARNI Heard.

KULKARNI Date:

2021.12.04 11:04:52 +0530

2. The present Petition is filed by the Petitioners who are

Plaintiffs who instituted Special Civil Suit No. 3024 of 2006

31-WP8449-2021.DOC

seeking a declaration to the effect that the Award dated

16.09.1975 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer

(6), Mumbai and Mumbai Suburban District has become null

and void. The aforesaid relief is sought in view of the

provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation

and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 on the ground that the said

proceedings have lapsed.

2. In the said suit, the Collector as well as the Special Land

Acquisition Officer are impleaded as Defendants.

3. During the pendency of the said suit, a chamber

summons is taken out by the MMRDA, seeking impleadment

in the suit, with specific pleadings to the effect that the

Applicant-MMRDA was allotted various parcels of land in

Bandra Kurla Complex by the Government of Maharashtra

and the possession was also made over to it by the Revenue

Authority, also various parcels of land bearing various CTS

numbers were also measured by MMRDA from CTSO, Bandra

31-WP8449-2021.DOC

under M.R. No. 271/12 and were subdivided.

4. In the aforesaid context and also giving reference to the

earlier special civil suit which was filed, being S.C. Suit No.

2116 of 2012, the impleadment is sought on the ground that

if it is declined irreparable loss will be caused, in view of the

interest of the MMRDA in the property involved in the suit.

This chamber summons is allowed by the City Civil

Court under the impugned order dated 15.02.2020,

resultantly this Petition.

5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners would

vehemently submit that the MMRDA should not have been

impleaded as a Respondent/Defendant, since the Collector

and the Land Acquisition Officer were already parties to the

suit and relying upon the decision in the case of Santosh

Kumar & Others v Central Warehousing Corporation

& Anr reported in (1986) 2 SCC 343, the proposition

enunciated is to the effect that even though Collector make an

order and he acted as an agent of the Government, and the

31-WP8449-2021.DOC

legal character of the award made by the Collector is that of a

tender or offer by him on behalf of the Government, if such is

a proposition, any other agency cannot bring any claim may

be on the ground that the award is suffering from any fraud,

corruption or collusion. The principles laid down in the

aforesaid judgment, may be a well settled principle of law, but

here is a case where during the pendency of the suit, the

interest has accrued to the MMRDA and it is seeking its

impleadment to protect its interest. In any case the plaintiff

had at an earlier point in time instituted a suit against

MMRDA and had obtained order in his favour.

6. In the wake of the aforesaid, the impugned order that

allowed the chamber summons, on the assertion of the

MMRDA that it is the owner of the suit property and since the

Plaintiffs are claiming a declaration that they are the owners

of the suit property, their impleadment is very much necessary,

in the capacity as a 'necessary party'.

7. The impugned order, therefore, do not suffer from any

31-WP8449-2021.DOC

illegality. There is no merit in the Petition.

8. The Petition is dismissed.

(Smt. Bharati Dangre, J.)