Delhi High Court
Habib Ur Rehman vs Union Of Inida & Ors on 15 November, 2017
$~20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 15th November, 2017
+ CM(M) 1247/2017 & CM No.39576/2017(stay) & CM
No.39577/2017(exemption)
HABIB UR REHMAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satish Sahai, Mr. Amique
Khalid, Mr. Abhishek Kumar &
Ms. Shruti Rathore, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INIDA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar & Mr.
Santosh Prasad Chaursiya,
Advs. for UOI with Dr. S.K.
Singh, Asst. Director (H),
CPWD.
Ms. Arti Bansal, Adv. for R6.
Mr. Manika Tripathy Pandey &
Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Advs.
for R7&8 with Inspector Inder
Lal & A.S.I. Vijay Singh.
Mr. Vivek B. Saharya, Adv. for
R-9.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The petition at hand invokes Article 227 of the Constitution of
India to bring a challenge to the order dated 03.08.2017 passed by
the Senior Civil Judge (South) at Saket Courts, New Delhi in the
course of proceedings arising out of the civil suit, presently
registered as CS no. SCJ 82862/16, which was originally instituted
by the petitioner on 06.11.1989, whereby the application under
Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) of the
tenth respondent, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) was
allowed and it was impleaded as tenth defendant.
2. It may be noted at the outset that the civil suit, which has been
pending since 1989, concerns a plot of land described by the
petitioner (plaintiff) as Lal Masjid Qabristan in Khasra no. 389,
360 and 361 within revenue record of the village, Aliganj, Lala
Lajpatrai Marg, New Delhi, the prayer in the civil suit being for a
decree for permanent injunction against interference in the peaceful
possession and enjoyment thereof or from committing trespass into
it or against putting any malba into it or causing any damage and
demolition to the graveyard and the property or leveling any
portion by the parties in the case arrayed as defendants.
3. The array of defendants in the suit, as originally presented by
the petitioner, included Union Of India through its Secretary in the
Ministry of Home Affairs (first defendant); Delhi Administration
through its Chief Secretary now Government of NCT of Delhi
(second defendant); Central Public Works Department (CPWD)
through its Chief Engineer (third defendant); Land and
Development Officer (fourth defendant); Delhi Development
Authority (fifth defendant); Municipal Corporation of Delhi (sixth
defendant); the Commissioner of Police New Delhi (seventh
defendant); Station House Officer of Police Station Lodhi Colony
(eighth defendant); and New Delhi Municipal Committee (ninth
defendant). It may also be noted here that the defendants,
particularly the Union of India in the course of contest, have taken
the position that suit property is government land and that the
plaintiff is an unauthorized and illegal occupier of the same.
4. It is stated that the Land and Development Officer of
Government of India (fourth defendant in the suit) had originally
earmarked the land in question to CPWD (third defendant) but, by
letter dated 28.02.2017, it has allotted land admeasuring 2.23
acres, to CRPF for construction of its office accommodation,
shifting of Canteen, barracks for men and parking of vehicles etc.
5. It is against the aforesaid backdrop that the application under
Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(CPC) was
moved before the Senior Civil Judge on 29.04.2017 by the Senior
Central Government Counsel seeking impleadment of CRPF (to be
represented through its Director General) as one of the defendants.
The application was contested by the petitioner/plaintiff, as noticed
in the order, by pleadings to the effect that such impleadment was
not necessary inter alia because it was in breach of the doctrine of
lis-pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
and that such move is belated and would delay the trial. The Trial
Judge has found such objections to be devoid of substance and
found it appropriate to implead CRPF as an additional defendant.
6. The petition is pressed to challenge the above mentioned order
on the same very contentions as were urged before the learned trial
judge. Reliance is placed on decisions of learned single judges of
this court in Sanjay Gupta Vs. Smt. Kala Wati 85 (2000) DLT 828,
Prakash Khattar Vs. Shanta Jindal & Ors. 181 (2011) DLT 138
and Bhim Singh Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. 149 (2008) DLT 34 to
submit that the allotment in favour of the CRPF was in breach of
the doctrine of lis-pendens as per Section 52 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882. It is also argued that the impleadment of a
party against the stand taken by the plaintiff is permitted only if
there is a legal right vesting in such additional party making him a
necessary party within the meaning of the provision contained in
Order I Rule 10 CPC.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel representing the respondents, this Court finds no merit in
the petition. The view taken by the learned trial judge in the
impugned order does not call for any interference. The validity of
allotment in favour of CRPF cannot be questioned or determined
without the party in question (the allottee) being arrayed as
defendant. By such allotment, CRPF claims to have acquired a
vested interest. In these circumstances, it is not merely a proper
party, but a necessary party to the proceedings.
8. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 15, 2017/umang
