LINGARAJA RATH, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of a common judgment in W. P. Nos. l 1814 and 11816 of 1994 and hence are disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE facts relating to the cases appear in detail in the judgment under appeal and hence need not be reiterated here at length. These appeals have been preferred by the appellant with the permission granted to prefer the appeals as he was not a party to the writ petitions. The main question urged in the appeals is that though the appellant in both the appeals was the person at whose instance the impugned notice dated 10-7-1984 was issued to the respondent no. 1 in the two appeals, yet he was neither impleaded as party-respondent to the writ petitions nor notice was issued by the High Court and the cases were disposed in his absence, by which he is prejudiced. It is his case that on 20-5-1965 he had been allotted the premises bearing No. 9/369 comprising of an area of 939. 52 square yards; that the allottee of premises No. 9368, which has only an area of 896. 51 square yards, wrongfully alienated larger protions of land which actually apertain to his allotted premises as a consequence of which he could be sold on 24-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document