Delhi High Court
Sh.Mohinder Singh & Ors vs Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 22 April, 2009
Author: Sanjay Kishan Kaul
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision : 22.04.2009
+ FAO (OS) No. 136/2009 and CM Nos.5321-5322/2009
SH.MOHINDER SINGH & ORS ... ... ... ... APPELLANTS
Through : Ms.Amita Mathur, Mr.Satinder
Singh Mathur, Ms.Sweety Singh
and Mr. Vikram Singh, Advs.
-VERSUS-
NCT OF DELHI & ORS ... ... ... ... .RESPONDENTS
Through : None.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. (ORAL)
1. The appellants filed a suit on the Original Side of this Court
seeking a declaration that they were the bhoomidars in
possession of plot no.415 situated within the Lal Dora of
Village Bijwasan, New Delhi. The appellants claimed that in
view of the declaration given by the Revenue Assistant in
terms of Order dated 26.02.1979, the appellants have
become the bhoomidars of the land in question in view of
the provisions of Section 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act,
FAO (OS) No.136/09 and CM 5321-22/09 Page No. 1 of 4
1954 ('the DLR Act' for short) as they had the cultivatory
possession of the land in question and the owner Mr.Mir
Singh s/o Mr.Ram Nath had taken no steps under Section 84
of the DLR Act to remove them. The appellants have also
sought cancellation of an order dated 19.01.2006 passed by
the Financial Commissioner in respect of the land in
question.
2. It may be noticed at the inception itself that the order dated
19.01.2006 of the Financial Commissioner became subject
matter of challenge in WP(C) No. 1678-84/2006 which has
been dismissed vide order dated 08.02.2006. An appeal
was preferred against that order by the appellants herein
which has been dismissed, being LPA Nos.443-449/2006, by
a separate order passed by us today. In the said order, it
has been held that the claim of the appellants to plot no.415
which was predicated on an application having been made
by Mr.Mir Singh s/o Mr.Ram Nath for allotment of land in
phirni whereby plot no.415 was allotted, was not sustainable
as no such application was made by the predecessor-in-
interest of the appellants i.e. Mr.Mir Singh s/o of Mr.Ram
Nath nor by the appellants.
3. The present appeal has arisen on an application filed by the
applicants in the suit seeking impleadment as a party which
has been allowed vide impugned order dated 28.01.2009.
4. The case of the appellants in those proceedings for
recording of their claim in the revenue record is pending in
respect of the land in question. Mr. Mir Singh s/o Mr. Ram
FAO (OS) No.136/09 and CM 5321-22/09 Page No. 2 of 4
Nath is stated to have sold 122 bighas and 7 biswas of land
on 31.10.1973 to Mr.Mohinder Singh and other plaintiffs
which in turn was sold to various purchasers. The
applicants claim that during consolidation proceedings
neither Mr.Mir Singh s/o Mr. Ram Nath nor any of the
transferees made any demand for allotment of a plot. The
plot of land measuring 6 bighas and 6 biswas which was
subject matter in the suit vested in the GaonSabha and out
of that land allotment had been made in favour of the
applicants. The request of the applicants to be impleaded
as a party in WP(C) No.15070/2006 filed by the appellants
seeking directions for entering their names in the revenue
records was allowed on 09.07.2008. The applicants sought
impleadment as a necessary party. This application was
opposed by the appellants claiming that the applicants were
not parties to proceedings before the Revenue Assistant. It
was pleaded that the principle of res judicata would apply in
view of the dismissal of an earlier application in WP(C)
No.2742/1984.
5. The learned Single Judge considered the submissions and
noted the fact that the LPA was pending which LPA has been
dismissed by us vide a separate order passed today. The
learned Single Judge noted that in WP(C) No.15070/2006 the
application for impleadment had been allowed.
6. We find no infirmity with the impugned order. The subject
matter of the dispute is the land in question in respect of
which the Financial Commissioner has passed an Order,
FAO (OS) No.136/09 and CM 5321-22/09 Page No. 3 of 4
which Order has been upheld by the learned Single Judge
and thereafter by us today. The learned Single Judge had
permitted impleadment of the persons who were the
applicants in the suit filed by the appellants in writ
proceedings filed by the appellants seeking entry of their
name in the revenue records. The dispute may have been
with the Gaon Sabha, but the Gaon Sabha in turn had
allotted the land to the applicants. In such a situation, it
could not be inferred that the applicants had no interest in
the suit property. It is no doubt true that the plaintiff is
normally the dominus litis, but where a party has a direct
interest in the subject matter of litigation, the said party is
liable to be added in the array of parties.
7. The claim of the applicants was in respect of the same land
for which the applicants have sought declaration.
8. We, thus, agree with the conclusion of the learned Single
Judge that the non impleadment of the applicants would
cause multiplicity of proceedings and may lead to
conflicting orders.
9. The appeal and the applications, being without any merit,
are dismissed.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
APRIL 22, 2009 SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
dm
FAO (OS) No.136/09 and CM 5321-22/09 Page No. 4 of 4
