Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J.
RAM SAHAI & OTHERS – Appellants
VS.
BOARD OF REVENUE RAJASTHAN, AJMER & OTHERS – Respondents
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1134, 3721/2008
Decided on : 05.05.2015
IMPLEADMENT OF PARTY - SALE OF PROPERTY DURING PENDENCY OF LITIGATION - APPLICANT PURCHASED PROPERTY DESPITE RESTRAINT ORDER - SALE DEED EXECUTED IN VIOLATION OF INJUNCTION - APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADMENT DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Applicant Utthan Township and Land Development Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur, filed applications seeking its impleadment as party-respondent in two writ petitions. The petitioners, Ram Sahai and others, had purchased agricultural land in 1981 and obtained mutation in their name. In 1988, the Assistant Settlement Officer corrected the measurement of the land and prepared a fresh Parcha Settlement. Respondent No. 4, Shankar, filed an appeal against the mutation, which was dismissed by the Additional Collector (IVth), Jaipur. Shankar then filed a second appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, which accepted the appeal and quashed the order of the Additional Collector. The petitioners challenged the order before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, which allowed the revision petition and remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar, Amer for deciding the question of mutation afresh. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 1134/2008 challenging the order of the Board of Revenue and the order of the Divisional Commissioner. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Tehsildar, Amer, attested mutation in favor of Respondent No. 4 despite the interim stay order passed by the Court. The petitioners filed a second Writ Petition No. 3721/2008 assailing the order of the Tehsildar. The applicant-company purchased land from Respondent No. 4 after the mutation was attested in his favor and filed applications for impleadment in both the writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the applicant was aware of the pendency of the writ petitions and the interim stay order passed by the Court. The sale deed in question was executed in violation of the injunction order and did not confer any valid title or interest in favor of the applicant. The Court also noted that the applicant had not disclosed the fact about the sale of the property in dispute in its reply filed in the writ petitions and had filed the applications for impleadment with a delay of more than four and a half years.
Issues: 1. Whether the applicant should be impleaded as a party-respondent in the writ petitions. 2. Whether the sale deed executed in favor of the applicant is valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to be impleaded as a party-respondent in the writ petitions as it was guilty of contumacious conduct and clandestine transaction of sale made in its favor by the owner-Respondent No. 4, in violation of the restraint order passed by the Court. 2. The Court held that the sale deed executed in favor of the applicant was not valid as it was executed in violation of the injunction order passed by the Court.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the applications filed by the applicant seeking its impleadment as party-respondent in both the writ petitions.
Certainly. Based on the legal document provided, here are the key points:
The court emphasized that a person who acquires an interest in the suit property during the pendency of litigation, in violation of a restraint or stay order, is not entitled to be impleaded as a party to the suit (!) (!) .
The sale of property during the pendency of litigation in violation of court orders is considered invalid and does not confer any valid title or interest upon the purchaser (!) (!) .
The conduct of the purchaser, especially if clandestine or in breach of court orders, disqualifies them from being considered a bonafide purchaser eligible for impleadment (!) (!) .
Delay in filing applications for impleadment, particularly when coupled with clandestine transactions or willful disobedience of court orders, justifies the rejection of such applications (!) (!) .
The court has the discretion to deny impleadment if the applicant is guilty of contumacious conduct, clandestine dealings, or has acted in violation of restraint orders, especially when there is a significant delay in making such applications (!) (!) .
The principles governing the impleadment of a subsequent purchaser include that the applicant must have acted in good faith, filed the application within a reasonable time after acquiring knowledge of the litigation, and not engaged in any clandestine or disobedient conduct (!) .
In this case, the applicant's sale was executed in violation of the court’s restraint order, and the applicant was aware of the ongoing litigation and stay orders, which disqualifies them from being considered a bonafide purchaser (!) (!) .
The court dismissed the applications seeking the applicant’s impleadment due to their misconduct, clandestine sale, and delay, reaffirming that such conduct disentitles them from participation in the proceedings (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or assistance with drafting related legal documents.
This order will decide applications No. 56498/2012 (in W.P. No. 1134/2008) and 56500/2012 (in W.P. No. 3721/2008) filed by applicant Utthan Township and Land Development Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur through its authorised signatory Shri Banwari Lal Arya, seeking its impleadment as party-respondent in both these writ petitions.
2. Writ Petition No. 1134/2008 has been filed by the petitioners, Ram Sahai, Ganesh Lal, Bansi Lal, Brij Mohan and Babu Lal, who purchased agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 151/1, new Khasra Nos. 349, 350, 351, 347/15252 and 348/1253, measuring 24 Bigha situated at village Bhatton Ki Gali, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur by registered sale deed dated 09.03.1981, from Raghunath and Bhagwana. This land was then mutated in their name on 12.06.1981. The Parcha Settlement dated 19.09.1987 was prepared by Assistant Settlement Officer, Tehsil Amer, Post Sikar showing measurement of the aforesaid land as 4.62 hectares whereas according to petitioners, actual size of the land was much more than that. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred appeal for correction of measurement of land before the Land Settlement and Land Record Officer, Sikar. Since neighbours of the said land, Shri Shyo Narain son of Balu Ram Kumawat and Shri Shankar son of Shri Shyonath Jogi were having excess land, they were made party to the aforesaid appeal. Appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 16.04.1988 and the order of Assistant Settlement Officer, Tehsil Amer was quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded back for redetermination of the measurement of land in question. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Tehsil Amer, Post Jaipur, after hearing all concerned, corrected measurement of the land in question vide order dated 05.12.1988 and prepared fresh Parcha Settlement and mutation was accordingly attested in their favour. Respondent No. 4, Shankar filed appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 against Mutation No. 190 attested by Tehsildar Amer in respect of Khasra No. 151/1 measuring 24 bighas in favour of Raghunath and Baghwana before the Additional Collector (IVth), Jaipur on the basis of their cultivatory possession belatedly after 40 years. The said appeal was dismissed by the Additional Collector (IVth), Jaipur vide order dated 22.07.2003. The petitioners, who had in the meantime, purchased the land in question from Raghunath and Bhagwana, Respondents No. 5 and 6, were not made party to the aforesaid appeal, although Respondent No. 4 had knowledge of the fact that land was purchased by the petitioners way back in the year 1981 and their names were recorded in the revenue records and correct measurement has also been done. Respondent No. 4 then filed second appeal under Section 76 of Land Revenue Act before Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur. In this appeal also, the petitioners were not made parties. Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur accepted the appeal vide order dated 30.08.2005 and quashed the order of Additional Collector (IVth), Jaipur as also mutuation dated 07.09.1962. The petitioners challenged the order dated 30.08.2005 before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, Bench at Jaipur, by way of filing revision petition, which was allowed vide order dated 01.12.2007 and the matter was remanded back to Tehsildar, Amer for deciding question of mutation afresh. Since the petitioners were not party before Divisonal Commissioner, Jaipur, they also filed an application under Section 96 CPC along with their revision petition. Respondents No. 5 and 6 also filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, Bench at Jaipur which was also allowed vide aforesaid order. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 01.12.2007 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, Bench at Jaipur and order dated 30.05.2008 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur by filing Writ Petition No. 1134/2008.
3. This Court vide order dated 08.02.2008, while issuing notices of writ petition, stayed operatio
AI
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
