JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR, J. -- Seventeen Petitioners who are owners of plots in Block C-1, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi have joined in this petition seeking a direction to restrain the Public Works Department (PWD), Respondent No. 2 herein and the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) Respondent No. 1 herein from removing their marble shops located on the plots.

2. Initially this Court was informed that the land on which the marble shops were located had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act). However, the proceedings of 26th May 1999 show that the Court was informed by the learned counsel for the Respondents that "the property which is the subject matter of the present petition has not been acquired but the predecessors of the petitioner gave an undertaking that they will keep the land vacant for use of general public." The parties were then directed to maintain status quo with regard to the possession. That interim order has continued. It must be mentioned that Respondent No. 3 is the DLF Housing & Construction Ltd. (hereinafter `the DLF’) from whom the Petitioners purchased the said plots on varying dates from 1956 to the early 1960s. By way of an application, CM 1445 of 2000, Respondent No. 3 had sought deletion of its name from the array of parties. The said application was allowed by an order dated 19th July 2000 which reads as under: "1. This is an application moved by respondent No.3 for deletion of said respondent from array of respondents in this writ petition. 2. Petitioner it appears are having their marble shops at Rajouri Garden. The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking a writ of prohibition against Government of NCT and the Public Works Department, who are threatening to demolish the structures of the petitioners or from interfering with their possession. It is not in dispute that threat to the petitioners is from respondents 1 & 2 against whom the writ of prohibition is sought. As regards respondent No. 3, no specific relief has been sought in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits before me that respondent No. 3 is a necessary party in these proceedings. He seeks to draw support from the affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2, wherein while producing the sanctioned plan in favour of respondent No. 3 colonizer, who had developed the said land, it is stated :-

"That the petitioners have not come to this Hon’ble Court with clean hands and fair intentions. And the petitioners have not cared to file any sanctioned site plan given by the Government to the colonizer with the respondent No.3 who admittedly was predecessor in interest of the petitioners. The said sanction plan which is being enclosed with the present counter affidavit shows that a 30 ft. wide subsidiary roads on the both sides of ring roads was mandatory supposed to be left by the colonizers, i.e. respondent No.3 which have been encroached by the petitioners and the petitioners are claiming now to be the owners of that particular land."

Mr. Sethi, therefore, submits that whether respondent No.3 complied with the conditions of the sanctioned plan would in issue.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner therefore submits that in case respondent No.3 has violated the terms of the sanctioned plan, the land could not have been sold by the said respondent.

4. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 3 had executed sale deed, which would reflect the land sold by it to original owners from whom the petitioners claim to have acquired their rights. In any case, respondents 1 and 2 have filed the sanctioned plan, which would show what had been sanctioned or not? In case the petitioners find that either the petitioners or their vendor have been deceived by respondent No.3, the remedy for that would be elsewhere and not in these proceedings.

In my view, having regard to the nature of the reliefs sought and the controversy involved, respondent No.3 is not a necessary or property party to the