Sh. Om Prakash & Ors. vs Uoi & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 6933 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+            CM(M) No. 616/2008 & CM No. 7332/2008 (stay)

%                                                    18th December, 2014

SH. OM PRAKASH & ORS.                                     ......Petitioners
                  Through:               Mr. K.G.Chhokar, Adv.


                          VERSUS

UOI & ORS.                                                 ...... Respondents
                          Through:       Mr. S.P.Sharma with Dr. Ashwani
                                         Bharadwaj, Adv. for R-2.

                                         Mr. Gajendra Giri, Adv. for R-3.

                                         Mr. J.K.Jain, Adv. for R-4.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is

filed by the interested persons (I.Ps) in the proceedings which are pending

before the Land Acquisition Court under Sections 30-31 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act'), impugning the order of the LAC

court dated 16.2.2008 by which the LAC court has allowed two applications

under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed


CM(M) 616/2008                                                                Page 1 of 6
 by respondents no.3 and 4 herein namely M/s Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd. and

M/s Man Sarovar Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. for them to be impleaded as parties to

the proceedings.

2.           The case of the respondent nos. 3 and 4/applicants under Order

XXII Rule 10 CPC was that the I.Ps in the proceedings by means of

registered sale deeds dated 2.5.1989, and the sale deeds/assignments deeds

dated 22.6.1989, had transferred their rights in the suit lands in favour of the

applicants and therefore these applicants were to be impleaded under Order

XXII Rule 10 CPC. It is not disputed that the sale deeds/assignments deeds

executed are during the pendency of the proceedings under Sections 30-31

of the Act i.e transfer is stated to have taken place pendente lite. The

petitioners however dispute the transfer to the applicants/respondent nos. 3

and 4.


3.           The LAC court has allowed the applications holding that the

applicants have to be given an opportunity to prove their right, title and

interest in the land in question in view of the sale deeds/assignment deeds

relied upon by them.


4.           I may also state that whether or not the sale deeds and

assignments deeds have or have not been executed, inasmuch as
CM(M) 616/2008                                                               Page 2 of 6
 petitioners/I.Ps dispute the execution of the sale deeds/assignment deeds,

this will be a disputed question of fact requiring trial in the LAC proceedings

and disputed questions of fact with respect to transfer of title of the land

surely cannot be decided without trial/leading evidence.


5.             Learned counsel for the petitioners/I.Ps contended that the Land

Acquisition Act provides a complete code and that the transferees pendente

lite cannot be said to be interested persons in view of Section 3(b) of the Act

and hence it is argued that they cannot be added as parties to the

proceedings.     Reliance in support of this argument is placed upon the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shyamali Das Vs. Illa

Chowdhry & Ors. 2006 IX AD (S.C.) 572.

6.             I am unable to agree with the arguments urged on behalf of the

petitioners/I.Ps that the applicants should not be added as parties to the LAC

proceedings inasmuch as Order XXII Rule 10 CPC clearly provides that

where rights in the subject matter of the legal proceedings are transferred,

the transferee can surely apply for being impleaded under Order XXII Rule

10 CPC. In fact, unlike the provisions of Order XXII Rules 3 and 4 CPC for

which limitation is provided, no limitation period is provided for moving an

application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC. In fact, application under Order

CM(M) 616/2008                                                              Page 3 of 6
 XXII Rule 10 CPC is required in order to prevent fraud upon the transferees

of the suit lands, because in their absence, rights in the suit land (if are

transferred to the applicants and proved by them in accordance with law in

the LAC proceedings), will be illegally and unfairly claimed by the I.Ps

though they are not entitled to the same. Supreme Court in the case of

Dhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs. Jai Prakash University and Ors. AIR 2001

SC 2552 has held that there is no limitation period prescribed for filing an

application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC and transferees pendente lite in

order to protect their interest can surely seek their impleadment under Order

XXII Rule 10 CPC.


7.           The judgment in the case of Shyamali Das (supra) relied upon

by the petitioners/I.Ps is distinguishable on facts because in the said

judgment the facts were that the applicant had moved a second application

for impleadment although an earlier application was dismissed vide order

dated 22.6.2004 of the LAC court and which order dated 22.6.2004 had

achieved finality. The fresh application also was only for an interim order in

the proceedings when the right to be impleaded was already denied by the

order of the LAC court dated 22.6.04. Since the order of the LAC court

dated 22.6.2004 had become final it was therefore held that the applicant

CM(M) 616/2008                                                             Page 4 of 6
 cannot again seek to be impleaded under Order I Rule 10 CPC, and that too

only for an interim order. Para 26 of the judgment makes the position clear

that the disputant is entitled to an interim order only if she is a party to the

proceedings, but since she cannot become a party to the main proceedings

hence the court would have no jurisdiction to pass an interim order in favour

of such a person. In fact Supreme Court in para 20 of the judgment in the

case of Shyamali Das (supra) stated that in certain circumstances even if

one application under Order I Rule 10 CPC is dismissed, another application

under Order I Rule 10 CPC can be filed if fresh facts arise for filing of a

fresh application under Order I Rule 10 CPC. In the present case, however

the subject application is the first application which has been filed and thus

allowed under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC by the lower court and therefore

unlike the judgment in the case of Shyamali Das (supra) there is no bar in

moving of the subject application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC on

account of a similar application having been dismissed earlier as was the

position in Shyamali Das's case (supra). Also, it is relevant to note that in

Shyamali Das's case (supra) the applicant was guilty of malafides because

the Supreme Court in fact observed in para 25 of the judgment that the

applicant really did not prima facie have any right, title and interest in the

property to which claim was laid by means of the second application under
CM(M) 616/2008                                                               Page 5 of 6
 Order I Rule 10 CPC. Also, it is relevant to note that the judgment in the

case of Shyamali Das (supra) does not deal with the issue of transferee

pendente lie, and which aspect is the subject matter of Order XXII Rule 10

CPC and Shyamali Das's case (supra) proceeds only with respect to

proceedings under Order I Rule 10 CPC.


8.           In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this petition and

the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




DECEMBER 18, 2014                             VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib