1. I have heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel, for the petitioners, and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, PWD, appearing on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. I have also heard Mr. M. Garodia, learned counsel, for the opposite party- Nos. 4 and 5, and Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel, for the opposite party No. 3.

2. The petitioners, herein have instituted, as plaintiffs, a suit, which has given rise to Title Suit No. 01/2010, the suit having been instituted, originally, against the State of Assam, represented by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works Department (Roads), and the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads), Silapathar, Dhemaji, who are defendant Nos.1 and 2 respectively, and one Lambit Duwari/a contractor, who has started construction over the land, which the plaintiffs claim to be their land, the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs being, inter alia, for declaration of their rights, title and interest over the suit land, recovery of khas possession thereof, a decree for recovery of Rs. 4 lakhs, for the damages, permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the said three defendants from constructing the road and culvert over the suit land and mandatory injunction commanding the said three defendants to remove all the materials, such as, earth, rods, etc. used for construction of the road and the culvert and to fill up, with earth, the ditches, which have been dug by the said defendants for the purpose of construction of the road and the culvert.

3. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs-petitioner obtained temporary injunction restraining the three defendants aforementioned from proceeding with the construction of the road and culvert over the suit land. By filing their written statement, the three defendants aforementioned contested the suit, wherein they contended, inter alia, that the names of the plaintiffs have been recorded, in the records of rights, as owner of the suit land, without the knowledge of the people of the locality concerned, though, a path has been, in reality, in existence for the lost 40-50 years, which runs from National Highway No.52 to End dike via Vijaypur, that the suit land forms part of the existing path and what the defendants aforementioned have started doing is merely convert the path into a road.

4. The opposite party Nos.4 and 5 herein have made an application, in the suit, seeking to be impleaded as defendants in the suit, by contending that they are President and Secretary of a body of persons named and styled as "Path Nirman Committee", the said Committee represents a number of villages, whose residents have had been in use of the suit land as a path, and any declaration and/or other reliefs, which the plaintiffs-petitioners herein have sought for in the suit, would, if granted, adversely affect the right of use of the path by the residents of the said villages. These applicants have, therefore, claimed that they are necessary parties and that they may be impleaded as defendants in the suit so that the suit can be effectively disposed of.

5. By order, dated 18.6.2010, the learned District Judge, Dhemaji, has allowed the said application, made by the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 herein, with direction to the plaintiffs-petitioners to implead opposite party Nos.4 and 5 herein, as defendants, in the suit, with further direction to the plaintiffs-petitioners to publish a public notice through a daily newspaper, widely circulated in the locality, where the suit land is situated, so as to invite similar interested persons to join as defendants either personally or in representative capacity. Aggrieved by the directions so given to them, the plaintiffs-petitioners have impugned the order, dated 18.6.2010, aforementioned, by filing this application under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. Broadly speaking, thus, the questions, which have arisen, for determination, in the present revision, are : (i) Whether the opposite party Nos.4 and 5 were

Click Here to Read the rest of this document