IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No 1881 of 2007
Messrs Maruti Clean Coaland Power Limited
...Petitioners
VERSUS
1 South Eastern Coalfield Limited
2 Government of Chhattisgarh
3 Messrs Kartikeya Coal Washeries Private Limited
...Respondents
! Shri B P Sharma Advocate for the petitioner
^ Shri P S Nair and Shri H B Agrawal Senior Advocates with Shri P S Koshy and Shri Pakaj Agrawal Advocates for the resp
Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur Govt Advocate for the respondent No 2
Shri K N Bhatt and Shri P Diwakar Senior Advocates with Shri Kulbharat and Shri P R Patankar Advocate for the respond
Honble Mr Justice Satish K Agnihotri
Dated: 15/05/2007
: Order
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
COSTITUTION OF INDIA
O R D E R
(Passed on this 15th of May, 2007)
1. By this petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India the petitioner impugns the order dated
21.2.2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Civil Judge Class-II,
Katghora, district- Korba in Civil Suit No. 90-A/2004, wherein
and whereby the application of the respondent No.3, filed under
Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. was allowed for impleading the
applicant as necessary party in the suit filed by the
respondent No.1/plaintiff.
2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the
respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and
permanent injunction in regard to the land bearing Khasra No.
594, part 611 and 616, total area 37.91, situated at village –
Rantija, which was allotted on lease to the
petitioner/defendant No.2. The claim of the petitioner for
declaration and permanent injunction was based on the facts
that under the provisions of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (herein after referred
to as `the Act, 1957′), after notification issued under the
provisions of Section 4 and Section 9 of the Act, 1957 the
disputed land vested in the Central Government by virtue of the
provisions of Section 11 of the Act, 1957 and as such the said
land got vested in the plaintiff/Coal Fields/Respondent No.1
3. Thus the suit was filed on 9.12.2004 (Annexure P/2)
against the State Government and the petitioner was also
impleaded as party because the said land was allotted to the
petitioner/defendant No.2 on lease by the State Government.
4. In the pending suit, the newly impleaded defendant
No.3/respondent No.3 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10
of the C.P.C. to implead the respondent No.3 as a
party/defendant on the ground that the respondent No.3 has made
an application to the State Government for allotment of
remaining 13 acres of land from the same Khasra numbers which
were involved in the pending suit.
5. Learned Court below after having considered the
arguments of learned counsel appearing for the parties came to
the conclusion that the respondent No.3 would substantially be
affected by the decision in the pending suit.
6. Shri B. P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that the respondent No.3, which has
filed the application under Order 1 Rule 10, was neither a
necessary nor proper party, as it has nothing to do with the
land in question in the pending civil suit. The remaining part
for which the respondent No.3 has made an application to the
State Government for allotment to the respondent No.3 has
nothing to do with the subject matter of the suit.
7. Shri P. S. Nair & Shri H. B. Agrawal, learned senior
counsel with Shri P. S. Koshy & Shri Pankaj Agrawal, learned
counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent No.1 would
support the case of the petitioner and the plaintiff/respondent
No.1 has submitted in its return, as under:-
“2.6 The respondent no. 3 filed an application for
impleading as one of the defendant under Order-I,
Rule-10 of the Code of Civil Procedure only on the
ground that he applied for lease of 13 Acres of land
situated at Village-Nawagaon, Tehsil-Pali, District
Korba and bearing Khasra No. 850/23 on lease basis
from State Government. It is submitted that by mere
filing of an application for lease does not confer
any right upon the Respondent No.3 which could be
enforce in a court of law. However the suit land is a
different land situated in different Village-Ratija
and therefore the application under Order-I, Rule-10
should have been rejected. However learned Trial
Court under grave misconception of facts and
circumstances allowed the application of the
respondent No.3 by the impugned order.”8. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Government
Advocate, appearing for the State Government also supported the
contention of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 and the petitioner.
The State has submitted in it’s return, as under:-
“3. In replied filed by the answering respondent
before the Trial Court opposing application of
respondent No.3 for impleadment, it has been stated
by the answering respondent that the land for which
the said respondent No.3 has moved an application for
allotment bears Khasra No. 850/23 whereas the present
suit pertains to Khasra No.s 850/30, 850/24, 850/31,
850/27, 850/28 and 850/32 area 37.91 acres situated
at village Ratija (Navagaonkhurd). It would thus be
clear that the two parcels of lands being different
the respondent No.3 had no locus in intervene in the
suit and seek his impleadment as defendant.4…..It is respectfully submitted that the
respondent No.3 is not a proper party for the
purposes of the lands involved in the suit. It is
settled law that any judgment passed in civil suit is
binding only upon the parties to the suit, therefore,
the respondent No.3 will not be affected in any
manner with the result of the suit.”9. Per contra, Shri K. N. Bhatt & Shri P. Diwakar,
learned senior counsel with Shri Kulbharat & Shri P. R.
Patankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3,
would submit that it is true that a part of the disputed Khasra
lands have been allotted to the petitioner and the petitioner
has made an application for allotment of the remaining land. In
case the remaining land is allotted to the petitioner, in
future, the respondent No.3 would substantially be affected.
Thus, in order to avoid multiplication of the suit, the
respondent No.3 is a proper and necessary party to be impleaded
in the suit. He would further submit that the presence of the
respondent No.3 would help the Court for proper adjudication of
the dispute.
10. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties and perused the pleadings and documents, appended
thereto.11. The Court below has completely ignored the fact that
the suit was filed with regard to the land allotted to the
petitioner only, may be the total area of the land in Khasra
No. 594, 611, 666 is 58.65 acres and out of 58.56 acres total
area allotted to the petitioner/defendant No.2 was 37.91 acres.
The plaintiff/respondent No.1 had sought for declaration and
permanent injunction in respect of only 37.91 Acres of the
land, which was allotted to the petitioner. The relevant clause
to that effect in plaint reads as under:-” izfroknh dzekad 2 dksy ok’kjh daiuh gS- izfroknh
daiuh oknHkwfe ftldh foLr`r tkudkjh okn i= esa layXu
ekufp= esa yky jax ls iznf’kZr dh x;h gS- oknHkwfe ds
Hkhrj xzke jrhtk dh Hkwfe [kljk uacj 594 dk Hkkx 611
dk Hkkx 616 dk Hkkx ‘kkfey gS- ”12. The Court below has further ignored the fact that the
newly impleaded defendant No.3 was not allotted any land till
date. The respondent No.3 itself in it’s application (Annexure
R-3/2) has requested for allotment of 13 acres of remaining
land of Khasra No. 850/23, which, according to the respondent
No.3, is new number of the same disputed land, at village
Ratija. It is beneficial to quote the application of the
respondent No.3, which is as under:-
” izfr]
Jheku ftyk/;{k egksn;]
Dksjck
fo”k; %& dksyokljh gsrq Hkwfe vkoaVu gsrq-
egksn;]
fo”k;kUrxZr fuosnu gS fd
1- es- dkfrZds; dksyok’kjh xzke jrhtk esa dksyok’kjh dh
LFkkiuk djuk pkgrh gS-2- gesa Kkr gqvk gS fd xzke jrhtk esa [kljk uacj 850@23 esa
13 ,dM Hkwfe fjDr gS-vr% egksn; ls fuosnu gS fd d`i;k gesa Hkw&vkcaVu
djus dk d”V djsa rkfd m?kksx dh ‘kh/kz LFkkiuk dh tk
lds- bl gsrq leLr vkSipkfjdrk iw.kZ djus gsrq ge
lgefr nsrs gSa-layXu& 1- vkosfnr tehu dk uD'kk lgh@& vLi"V 2- ifj;kstuk izfrosnu- izfrfyfi &1- Jheku vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh] dV?kksjk
2- egkizca/kd ftyk m|ksx dsUnz dksjck dks vko’;d dk;Zokgh
gsrq- ”It is indisputable that the remaining land admeasuring
13 acres which was not the subject matter of the
dispute has not yet been allotted to the respondent
No.3.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi
Anwar Begum and others (AIR 1958 SC 886), while considering the
question of addition of party in an application under order 1
Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. held as under:-
“13 (2) That in a suit relating to property, in
order that a person may be added as a party, he
should have a direct interest as distinguished
from a commercial interest, in the subject-
matter of the litigation;”
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in J. J. Lal Pvt. Ltd. and
others Vs. M.R.Murali and another { (2002) 3 SCC 98} has
observed that in the case of title between two persons, the
presence of third party is neither necessary for the decision
of the question involved, nor his presence is necessary to
enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon
and settle the questions involved in the proceedings.
15. In the case on hand, the basis question involved is
asto whether the property which is allotted to the petitioner
in question vests in the respondent No.1 Coal Fields or in the
State Government in view of the provisions of the Act, 1957 and
after the notification dated 9.11.1986 under the provisions of
Section 4 and 9 of the said Act, 1957.
16. Without going into the merits of the case, as the
same may prejudice the rights of the parties, I am of the
considered opinion that the respondent No.3 is neither a
necessary nor proper party for adjudication of the question of
law involved in the suit bearing No. 90-A/2004 (South Eastern
Coal Fields Ltd. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & another).
17. There is apparent error and perversity in the
impugned order passed by the Court below and the same deserves
to be set aside.
18. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order
dated 21.2.2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Civil Judge Class-
II, Katghora, district- Korba in Civil Suit No. 90-A/2004, is
set aside. No order as to costs.
J U D G E