Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder @ Ravinder Kumar Chahal vs Commissioner Hisar And Others on 29 April, 2024
Author: Meenakshi I. Mehta
Bench: Meenakshi I. Mehta
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057599
2024:PHHC:057599
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(1) CR No.7208 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 29.04.2024
Ravinder @ Ravinder Kumar Chahal
...Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Hisar, Division Hisar and others
...Respondents
(2) CR No.7209 of 2023
Vishal @ Vishal Sangwan
...Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Hisar, Division Hisar and others
...Respondents
(3) CR No.7229 of 2023
Raghbir Singh @ Raghuvir Chahal
...Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Hisar, Division Hisar and others
...Respondents
(4) CR No.7230 of 2023
Manish Kumar
...Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Hisar, Division Hisar and others
...Respondents
(5) CR No.7473 of 2023
Savitri Devi
...Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Hisar, Division Hisar and others
...Respondents
1 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2024 03:36:41 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057599
CR No.7208 of 2023 (O&M) and other connected cases
-2- 2024:PHHC:057599
(6) CR No.7272 of 2023
Gian Singh
...Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Hisar, Division Hisar and others
...Respondents
(7) CR No.7274 of 2023
Jiwan Kumar Gupta
...Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Hisar, Division Hisar and others
...Respondents
(8) CR No.7278 of 2023
Narinder Singh
...Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Hisar, Division Hisar and others
...Respondents
(9) CR No.7287 of 2023
Pardeep Kumar
...Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Hisar, Division Hisar and others
...Respondents
(10) CR No.7292 of 2023
Munni Devi
...Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Hisar, Division Hisar and others
...Respondents
2 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2024 03:36:42 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057599
CR No.7208 of 2023 (O&M) and other connected cases
-3- 2024:PHHC:057599
(11) CR No.7295 of 2023
Ranjeet Singh
...Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Hisar, Division Hisar and others
...Respondents
(12) CR No.7312 of 2023
Laxmi
...Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Hisar, Division Hisar and others
...Respondents
(13) CR No.7318 of 2023
Chanderkala and another
...Revisionists-Petitioners
Versus
Commissioner Hisar, Division Hisar and others
...Respondents
(14) CR No.7321 of 2023
Chetan
...Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Hisar, Division Hisar and others
...Respondents
(15) CR No.7322 of 2023
Anita
...Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Hisar, Division Hisar and others
...Respondents
3 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2024 03:36:42 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057599
CR No.7208 of 2023 (O&M) and other connected cases
-4- 2024:PHHC:057599
(16) CR No.7332 of 2023
Rajesh Verma
...Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Hisar, Division Hisar and others
...Respondents
(17) CR No.7335 of 2023
Kuldeep Singh
...Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Hisar, Division Hisar and others
...Respondents
(18) CR No.7352 of 2023
Pankaj Jindal
...Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Hisar, Division Hisar and others
...Respondents
(19) CR No.7354 of 2023
Sanjay Kumar
...Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Hisar, Division Hisar and others
...Respondents
(20) CR No.7356 of 2023
Rajesh Kumar
...Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Hisar, Division Hisar and others
...Respondents
4 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2024 03:36:42 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057599
CR No.7208 of 2023 (O&M) and other connected cases
-5- 2024:PHHC:057599
(21) CR No.7357 of 2023
Mahadevi Goyal
...Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Hisar, Division Hisar and others
...Respondents
(22) CR No.7361 of 2023
Saroj
...Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Hisar, Division Hisar and others
...Respondents
(23) CR No.7362 of 2023
Pardeep Singh
...Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Hisar, Division Hisar and others
...Respondents
(24) CR No.7519 of 2023
Jitender Singh
...Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Hisar, Division Hisar and others
...Respondents
(25) CR No.7535 of 2023
Jogi Ram (since deceased) through his LR
...Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Hisar, Division Hisar and others
...Respondents
5 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2024 03:36:42 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057599
CR No.7208 of 2023 (O&M) and other connected cases
-6- 2024:PHHC:057599
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Argued by:- Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate and
Mr. Aman Godara, Advocate and
Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate
for the revisionist(s)-petitioner(s).
*****
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.
All the twenty-five (25) above-captioned revision-petitions are
being taken up together for discussion and adjudication as similar questions of
law and facts are involved therein.
2. Bereft of the unnecessary details, the common facts, as culled out
from the perusal of all the files and culminating in the filing of the present
revision-petitions, are that the employees of the Animal Husbandry Department
at Hisar, formed a Society named and styled as The Hisar Animal Husbandry
Co-operative House Building Society Limited (for short 'the Society'), for the
construction of their houses and then, the State Government allotted the land
measuring 32 Acres 05 Kanals 03 Marlas to it (Society) for the afore-said
purpose. The Society carved out the residential plots in this land and named the
locality/Colony as Sunder Nagar and submitted its map/lay-out for seeking the
necessary approval from the Municipal Committee, Hisar, wherein a strip of the
land on the Northern boundary of the Colony, adjoining the National Highway
No.10, was shown to have been reserved for developing it as the green belt
area, for being used as the Park and Temple by the residents of the Colony.
However, some employees/officers of the Co-operative Societies Department
allegedly converted the land, so reserved, into the plots and allotted the same to
several persons, including the petitioners/their vendors. Then, the Municipal
Corporation, Hisar, i.e respondent No.2, issued the notices to the petitioners
6 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057599
CR No.7208 of 2023 (O&M) and other connected cases
-7- 2024:PHHC:057599
under Sections 250 and 261 of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994,
requiring them to remove the illegal construction as raised by them in the plots,
comprised in the green belt area, without seeking/obtaining its approval and the
petitioners filed Replies to the said notices but respondent No.2 again issued
notices to them (petitioners) and they challenged the same before this Court by
filing CWP No.15110 of 2021 and CWP No.15111 of 2021 and these Writ
Petitions were decided on 31.08.2021 and 19.08.2021 vide orders Annexures
P-20 and P-21, respectively and in compliance of the above-referred orders,
respondent No.3 passed the orders on 26.04.2022, regarding the demolition of
the construction raised on the afore-mentioned plots in the green belt area and
feeling aggrieved therefrom, the petitioners filed the Appeals before respondent
No.1. During the pendency of these Appeals, respondents No.6 & 7-applicants
(here-in-after to be referred as 'the applicants') moved the applications under
Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC with the prayer to implead them as
the party therein, while averring that they were the members of the said Society
and had, thus, direct interest in the land, as left for being developed as the green
belt area but this land had, illegally, been converted into the plots and these
plots had been allotted to several persons, including the petitioners, who had,
unauthorisedly, raised the construction in the same and had been carrying on
the commercial activities therein which had been causing a lot of air, water and
noise pollution. The above-said applications have been allowed by respondent
No.1 (the Appellate Authority) vide the impugned orders, annexed as P-27 in
all the revision-petitions.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners in the instant
revision-petitions, at the preliminary stage and have also gone through the
files carefully.
7 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057599
CR No.7208 of 2023 (O&M) and other connected cases
-8- 2024:PHHC:057599
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the
applicants were not a party to the initial litigation and hence, they could not be
impleaded as the respondents in the afore-said Appeals and moreover, they
have no right, title or interest in the plots in dispute and therefore, they cannot
be considered to be the necessary party to the above-referred Appeals, for the
proper adjudication thereof and to add to it, an application, as moved by the
applicants for being impleaded as party in the Civil Suit filed earlier in respect
of one of the plots in the said locality/Colony, had been dismissed by learned
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar on 08.01.2020 vide the order Annexure
P-28 (in all the revision-petitions) and in these circumstances, it becomes
explicit that the impugned orders are not legally sustainable and deserve to be
set-aside. To buttress their contentions, they have placed reliance upon the
verdicts rendered by the Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Pattnaik versus
Pushpendra Kumari & others, 2008(10) SCC 708 and Amit Kumar Shaw &
Anr versus Farida Khatoon & Anr, 2005(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 651 and this Court
in Ramesh Kumar versus Naresh Kumar, 2001(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 693; Ram
Singh Sharma versus Smt. Parmod Kumari and anr, 1992(2) R.R.R. 163;
Ram Pal versus Akki Devi alias Savitari Devi and others, 2006(3) R.C.R.
(Civil) 264 and the Allahabad High Court in Deepa Sharma and ors versus
Raj Kumari Devi and ors, 2006(2) R.C.R (Civil) 796.
5. As regards the contention to the effect that the applicants could
not be joined as the party at the appellate stage, the same is not tenable at all
because they (applicants) are the members of the afore-said Society and it
being so, they have every right to enjoy the green belt area, as earmarked for
its common use, benefit and well-being of the members of the Society and the
conversion of the said area as the plots and raising of the construction thereon,
8 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057599
CR No.7208 of 2023 (O&M) and other connected cases
-9- 2024:PHHC:057599
would certainly adversely affect their (applicants') above-discussed right and
they would be aggrieved by the same. It is also worth-while to mention here
that in the Civil Appeal titled as Bayer (India) Ltd and Others versus State of
Maharashtra and Others, 1991(1) SCC 647, the writ-petitioners before the
High Court had challenged the communication received from the Bombay
Municipal Corporation regarding the rejection of the application, preferred by
them for seeking permission to develop the landed property situated near the
chemical factories in the same village, in view of the representations moved
by the owners of the said factories to the Government and the High Court had
allowed the afore-said writ petition and then, the factory owners, who were
not joined in the writ petition as the respondents, had filed the Special Leave
Petition (SLP) on the ground that the judgment of the High Court adversely
affected them and they were aggrieved from the same and this SLP had been
allowed and while adjudicating the above-cited Civil Appeal, a Three Judges'
Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically observed that "the appellants
could be said to be the parties aggrieved by the impugned judgment, even if
they were not regarded as necessary parties and it was proper that the entire
controversy to which the impugned judgment related, should be determined in
the light of the submissions which might be made by the appellants". These
observations are fully applicable to the present cases and in view of the same,
the verdicts, as rendered by this Court in Ram Pal (supra) and the Division
Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Deepa Sharma and others (supra) are
of no avail to the petitioners.
6. So far as the plea regarding the applicants having no right or
interest in the plots in dispute and hence, they, not being necessary party to
the above-said Appeals, is concerned, the same does not cut any ice with this
9 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057599
CR No.7208 of 2023 (O&M) and other connected cases
-10- 2024:PHHC:057599
Court because they (applicants), being the members of the Society, have to be
considered to be aggrieved from the change of nature and user of the land, as
reserved for being developed as the green belt area for its common use by the
residents of the Colony, by way of carving out the plots in it and raising the
construction in the same, as discussed earlier. The judgments passed by this
Court in Ramesh Kumar (supra) and Ram Singh Sharma (supra), are also of
no help to the petitioners, in view of the afore-quoted observations, as made
by the Apex Court in Bayer (India) Ltd and others (supra).
7. Similarly, the judgments handed down by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in Ramesh Chandra Pattnaik (supra) and Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr.
(supra) do not further the cause of the petitioners as the facts and circumstances
of both the above-referred cases are distinguishable from those of the present
ones because in Ramesh Chandra Pattnaik (supra), the subsequent purchaser
was sought to be impleaded as party in a Suit for specific performance of the
agreements to sell and in Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr. (supra), the transferees,
pendent-lite, were sought to be substituted as the party in the second Appeal,
but in the instant cases, the applicants, being the members of the Society, have
the right to enjoy the user of the green belt area, from the very beginning.
8. Lastly, the contention qua the dismissal of the application, filed
by the applicants earlier, vide the order Annexure P-28, is devoid of any force
because the concerned trial Court had dismissed the said application, while
observing that they (applicants) had moved the same as the members of the
afore-mentioned Society but they had not tendered any documentary proof,
along-with their application, to establish their membership in the above-said
Society but in the impugned orders, the Appellate Authority has specifically
observed that from the documents, as produced by both the parties on the
10 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057599
CR No.7208 of 2023 (O&M) and other connected cases
-11- 2024:PHHC:057599
record, it was found that the applicants were the residents of Sunder Nagar,
Hisar and were the members of the said Society and they were associated with
its (Society's) activities as such and therefore, it would be in the interest of
justice to hear them for the equitable decision in the Appeals and in view of
the afore-discussed observations, it becomes crystal clear that order Annexure
P-28 cannot be construed to be an impediment in impleading the applicants as
the party in the above-referred Appeals.
9. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the
impugned orders (Annexure P-27), as handed down in all the present revision-
petitions, do not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, infirmity or perversity
so as to call for any interference by this Court. Resultantly, the revision-
petitions in hand, being sans any merit, stand dismissed.
29th April, 2024 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
neetu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes
11 of 11
