Rajasthan High Court
Roopchand S/O Shri Hetram vs District Collector ... on 25 January, 2023
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
[2023/RJJP/000449]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13926/2022
Roopchand S/o Shri Hetram, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of
Nareda Kalan, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. District Collector, Alwar, District Alwar, Through Land
Holder Tehsildar, Behror, District Alwar (Raj.)
2. Sub-Division Magistrate, Behror, District Alwar (Raj.)
3. Tehsildar, Behror, District Alwar (Raj.)
4. Shyam Sunder S/o Late Murarilal, Resident Of Nareda
Kalan, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar (Raj.)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13925/2022
Roopchand S/o Shri Hetram, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of
Nareda Kalan, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. District Collector, Alwar, District Alwar, Through Land
Holder Tehsildar, Behror, District Alwar (Raj.)
2. Sub-Division Magistrate, Behror, District Alwar (Raj.)
3. Tehsildar, Behror, District Alwar (Raj.)
4. Shyam Sunder S/o Late Murarilal, Resident Of Nareda
Kalan, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raghavendra Singh Khichi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
25/01/2023
[2023/RJJP/000449] (2 of 4) [CW-13926/2022]
These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners
challenging the order dated 01.09.2022 of the learned trial Court,
whereby the application filed on behalf of the applicant-
respondents under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. was allowed.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a
suit before the learned trial Court against the respondent No. 1 to
3 for declaration and permanent injunction. During pendency of
the said suit, the respondent No.4 filed an application under Order
1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading him as party-defendant in the suit
proceedings on the ground that the land belongs to the Chharagah
land and the nature of the land is Chharagah land, The respondent
No.4 has also filed a writ petition before this Court (D.B. Civil Writ
Petition (PIL) No.7844/2022) in which this Court has directed the
respondent No.4 to submit a representation before the Public Land
Protection Cell (District Magistrate), it was further mentioned in
the application that the said representation is pending before the
District Magistrate, therefore the petitioner is necessary party. The
learned trial Court allowed the application vide its order dated
01.09.2022.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 01.09.2022, the
petitioners-plaintiffs have filed the present writ petition
challenging the order dated 01.09.2022.
Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submitted that the land in
dispute has already been converted into Abaadi land in the year
1972. Counsel further submits that the petitioner-plaintiff has
already constructed the house and residing in the said house,
however, the respondents are going to demolish his house.
Counsel further submits that the respondent No.4 is neither
[2023/RJJP/000449] (3 of 4) [CW-13926/2022]
necessary nor proper party in the suit proceedings and prayed for
allowing the petitions.
In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioners
relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in
the matter of Mohamed Hussain Gulam Ali Shariffi vs.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. reported
in (2020) 14 SCC 392.
Learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents
opposed the writ petition and submitted that the land in dispute
belongs to the Chharagah land and therefore the applicant who
has also filed a public interest litigation as well as an application
before the learned trial Court is a necessary party.
In support of his contentions, counsel for the respondents
relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the matter of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited
Vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited
and Ors, (Civil Appeal No.4900/2010) reported in (2010) 7
SCC 417.
Counsel further relied upon the another judgment passed by
the Hon'ble High Court, at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in the
matter of Ashok Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Writ
Petition no.10493/2022).
Counsel further replied upon another the judgment passed
by this Court Bench at Jaipur in the matter of Prabhat Vs. The
Board of Revenue (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1347/1986).
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
[2023/RJJP/000449] (4 of 4) [CW-13926/2022]
These writ petitions filed by the petitioner-plaintiff deserves
to be allowed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioner has filed suit
for permanent injunction and declaration against the State
respondents and whether the nature of the suit property is
Chharagah land or not can only be decide after recording the
evidence before the learned trial Court and the said respondents
are duly represented before the learned trial Court; secondly, the
application under Order 7 Rule 11 has already been filed by the
respondents before the Civil Court which is still pending; thirdly, in
my considered view, the respondent No.4 is neither necessary nor
proper party of the suit proceedings as he is a stranger to the suit
proceeding; therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, no case is made out for interference by this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Hence these writ petitions stand allowed. The order dated
01.09.2022 passed by the trial Court in both the writ petitions are
quashed and set aside. However, any observations given in this
judgment shall not effect the merits of the case before the learned
trial Court. Copy of this order be separately placed in the
connected file.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
JYOTI /16-17
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
