Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :I.C.BHATT, P.R.GOKULAKRISHNAN, S.B.MAJMUDAR
GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD - Appellant
Versus
NAGAJIBHAI LAXMANBHAI - Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION 1687 of 1983
Decided On : 09/19/1985
Civil Procedure Code , 1908 – Section 115 - Order 1 Rule 10 (2) - Land Acquisition Act – Section 18 and 50 - Lands were acquired by the State Government 1st defendant in suit for achieving the objects and activity of the petitioner herein - While so the 1st respondent herein who is the plaintiff and his relatives and other interested persons originally filed suits in which the petitioner was also a party-defendant - Having failed in those proceedings the plaintiff - 1st respondent herein has come forward with the present suit without making the petitioner as party-defendant - It is case of petitioner herein in application filed by him that is a necessary and proper party that if the suit is proceeded without the petitioner being a party irreparable loss and hardship would be caused to him and that petitioner being acquiring body of disputed lands he should be joined as a party-third defendant to the suit - With abovesaid prayer the petitioner herein wanted the Civil Judge before whom the Regular was pending. to join him as party-third defendant to the suit - Petitioner being the acquiring body of the disputed lands he should be joined as a party-third defendant to the suit - With the abovesaid prayer the petitioner herein wanted Civil Judge before whom Regular Civil Suit No was pending to join him as party-third defendant to the suit - 1st respondent herein opposed application filed by petitioner herein before the Civil Judgestating that petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party and that plaintiff in suit cannot be compelled to litigate against a person from whom he does not seek any relief - Plaintiffs in the suit referred above are questioning the validity of such acquisition - In that suit petitioner has come forward with the present application to add themselves as the patty-respondent in the suit stating that are vitally interested and as such they are necessary and proper party to the suit – Held, Learned referring Judge of our High Court in the present case the impugned land acquisition is for the public purpose of the Gujarat Housing Board and is being acquired at the cost of Gujarat Housing Board - Entire amount of compensation is to come out of funds of Gujarat Housing Board who is petitioner herein - Even the cost of the present litigation irrespective of its result. is to be borne by the Gujarat Housing Board - In fact all the stake in result of the litigation and cost of the litigation is on the Gujarat Housing Board and as such it can he easily presumed that the Gujarat Housing Board is an interested party in this litigation - Reference by declaring that the person for whose benefit the and is acquired is an interested party and has every right to be added as a party-defendant to the suit ill order to effectually and completely decide the dispute in issue - Court also declare that when there are two conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court consisting of equal number of Judges later of the two decisions should be followed by the High Courts and other Courts - Civil Revision Application holding that petitioner is an interested party and petitioners presence is necessary for effectually and completely deciding the issues involved in the suit pending before the Civil Judge - Civil Revision Application is allowed.
( 1 ) THE Gujarat Housing Board is the petitioner in Civil Revision Application No. 1687 of 1983. The Civil Revision Application is filed against the order passed by the Civil Judge (S. D.) Bhavnaga in Order below Exh. 20 dated 23. 7. 1981.
( 2 ) THE 1st respondent herein filed Regular Civil Suit No. 151 of 1981 on the file of the Civil Judge (S. D.) Bhavnagar praying for setting aside section 4 and section 6 notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act. In that suit the present petitioner herein put in an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) Civil Procedure Code praying to join him as party-defendant No. 3 in the main suit. According to the petitioner herein it is a body corporate and it carries activity of constructing residential buildings for weaker section of the people. It has constructed buildings in lands situated at the outskirt of Vadhva in the City of Bhavnagar and for further construction of buildings for weaker section of people as well as for the middle class people it required further area. It submitted its representation to the State Government and the State Government by its Notification under the Land Acquisition Act acquired the lands bearing Survey Nos. 384 385 and 386 situated at the outskirt of Vadhva. Thus the lands were acquired by the State Government. who is the 1st defendant in the suit for achieving the objects and activity of the petitioner herein. While so the 1st respondent herein who is the plaintiff and his relatives and other interested persons originally filed suits in which the petitioner was also a party-defendant. Having failed in those proceedings the plaintiff. who is the 1st respondent herein has come forward with the present suit without making the petitioner as the party-defendant. It is the case of the petitioner herein in the application filed by him that he is a necessary and proper party that if the suit is proceeded without the petitioner being a party irreparable loss and hardship would be caused to him and that the petitioner being the acquiring body of the disputed lands he should be joined as a party-third defendant to the suit. With the abovesaid prayer the petitioner herein wanted the Civil Judge (S. D.) before whom the Regular Civil Suit No. 151 of 1981 was pending. to join him as party-third defendant to the suit. The 1st respondent herein opposed the application filed by the petitioner herein before the Civil Judge (S. D.) stating that the petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party and that the plaintiff in the suit cannot be compelled to litigate against a person from whom he does not seek any relief.
( 3 ) THE Civil Judge (S. D.) Bhavnagar after referring to Mahuva Municipality v. Mehta Kiritkumar Umedchand and Ors. (ATR 1973 Gujarat 97) wherein the Gujarat High Court has held that the acquiring body is not a party interested in the subject matter of the suit nor said to be a proper party to the suits rejected the application filed by the petitioner herein under Order Rule 10 CPC.
( 4 ) IT is as against this order the present Civil Revision Application has been filed by the proposed party. Mr. Justice R. A. Mehta the learned single Judge of our High Court after referring to various decisions of our High Court and that of Supreme Court found that Mahuva Municipality v. Mehta Kiritkumar Umedchand and ors. (AIR 1973 Gujarat 97) and The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Chandulal Shamaldas Patel and others (1973 (3) SCC 821) are taking a view that the body for the benefit of which the acquisition is made is not a necessary party while Himalaya Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. v. Francis Victor Coutinho (AIR 1980 SC 1118) is observing that the said body is a necessary party and referred the matter to the larger Bench for decision. It is thus the matter is before us.
( 5 ) IT is clear from the facts of the case that the land in question is being acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer Bh
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
