SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Raj) 1054

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Govind Mathur, J.
Gram Panchayat, Tandoorwali - Appellant
Versus
Subasadak and Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11288 of 2012.
Decided On : 8-04-2013

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Krishan Bansal, Advocate.

Headnote:

Waiver - Party to Proceedings - The court dismissed the application of the Gram Panchayat to become a party to the proceedings, as the plaintiff was claiming a decree of permanent injunction and not a decree of declaration pertaining to title. The land in question had already been given to the Public Health Engineering Department, making the Gram Panchayat not a necessary party.

Fact of the Case:

The court dismissed the application of the Gram Panchayat to become a party to the proceedings, as the plaintiff was claiming a decree of permanent injunction and not a decree of declaration pertaining to title.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Gram Panchayat was not a necessary party to the suit, as the land in question had already been given to the Public Health Engineering Department.

Issues: Whether the Gram Panchayat was a necessary party to the suit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Gram Panchayat was not a necessary party as the plaintiff was claiming a decree of permanent injunction and the land had already been given to the Public Health Engineering Department.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the application of the Gram Panchayat to become a party to the proceedings was rejected.

JUDGMENT

1. - The defects pointed out by the Registry are waived for the purpose of admission.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on merits.

3. By the order dated 20.03.2012, learned court subordinate dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner applicant Gram Panchayat for becoming party to the proceedings.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the land in question is property of Gram Panchayat and therefore, it is a party necessary to the suit, where the plaintiff is claiming title over the land.

5. I do not find any merit in the argument advanced.

6. From perusal of the facts available on record, it is apparent that the respondent plaintiff is claiming a decree of permanent injunction and not a decree of declaration pertaining to title. It is further relevant to note that the land in question has already been given by the Gram Panchayat to the Public Health Engineering Department to establish its pump house and the Public Health Engineering Department is already a party defendant in the suit concerned. After handing over the land to the Public Health Engineering Department, it cannot be said that the Gram Panchayat is a party necessary. No error, therefore, has been committed by the learned court subordinate that may warrant interference of this court while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed.Petition Dismissed.

*******

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top