Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
TASHI RABSTAN, M.A. CHOWDHARY, JJ.
Farooq Ahmad Sheikh, S/o. Ghulam Hassan Sheikh and Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Tariq Ahmad Malik, S/o. Mohammad Ismail Malik and Ors. - Respondents
LPA No. 72 of 2023 in WP (C) No. 07 of 2021
Decided On : 20-05-2024
Impleadment - Writ Petition - Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Article 226 - Necessary party - Writ jurisdiction - Vitally affected parties
Fact of the Case:
The Writ Petitioners sought a direction to refrain official Respondents from interfering with the filling of land for cultivation or commercial use. The Applicants/Appellants claimed their land was affected by the Writ Petitioners' unauthorized construction and sought impleadment as party Respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The Writ Court dismissed the application for impleadment, citing doubts about the Applicants' claim and lack of relief sought against them. The Court held that the Applicants were not necessary parties and rejected their application.
Issues: Whether the Applicants/Appellants were necessary parties in the Writ Petition and if the principles of impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to Writ proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that in Writ Petitions, necessary parties are those vitally affected by the decision sought, and the concept of necessary party in a Writ Petition is wider than in Civil Suits. The Court emphasized the need to ensure that all vitally affected parties are made respondents in Writ Petitions.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned Order, and ordered the Applicants/Appellants to be impleaded as party Respondents in the Writ Petition.
JUDGMENT :
M.A. Chowdhary, J.
1. This intra Court appeal is directed against the Order dated 4th of April, 2023 (for short ‘the impugned Order’) passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 11 herein, being WP (C) No. 07/2021, whereby the application (CM No. 7557/2022) filed by the Applicants/Appellants herein for seeking their impleadment as party Respondents in the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
2. From the perusal of the pleadings on record, it emerges that the Writ Petitioners/contesting Respondents herein filed Writ Petition invoking Writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking a direction upon the official Respondents to refrain and forbear from causing any kind of interference with the process of filling of the land measuring 32 Kanals and 05 Marlas covered by Survey Nos. 1846/95 Min (03 Kanals and 13 ½ Marlas), 1847/95 (01 Kanal and 10 Marlas), 1837/93 (03 Kanals and 16 Marlas), 1838/93 (06 Kanals and 10 Marlas), 1830/93 (02 Kanals), 1849/96 Min (03 Kanals and 10 Marlas), 1842/94 (02 Kanals and 01 Marlas), 1840/94 Min (03 Marlas), 1846/95 Min (01 Kanal and 17 Marlas), 1840/94 Min (02 Kanals and 18 ½ Marlas), 1829/93 (09 Marlas), 1830/93 (01 Kanal and 11 Marlas) and 1839/94 Min (02 Kanal and 06 Marlas) situate at village Suzeth, Goripora, Tehsil Narbal, District Budgam, recorded as ‘Nambal’ in the revenue records and land measuring 99 Kanals and 12 Marlas covered under Survey Nos. 1519 Min (02 Kanals and 08 Marlas), 1519 Min (04 Kanals), 1519 Min (04 Kanals), 1519 Min (02 Kanals and 10 Marlas), 1519 Min (01 Kanal), 1518 Min (01 Kanal), 1518 Min (17 ½ Marlas), 1518 Min (02 Kanals), 1518 Min (03 Kanals), 1518 Min (03 Kanals and 4 ½ Marlas), 1500 Min (04 Kanals), 1463/1 (02 Kanals and 01 Marla), 1462 Min (08 Kanals and 12 Marlas), 1517 Min (02 Kanals and 07 Marlas), 1516 Min (12 Marlas), 1518 Min (01 Kanal and 2 ½ Marlas), 1509 Min (04 Kanals), 1509 Min (04 Kanals and 13 ½ Marlas), 1520 Min (05 Kanals and 08 Marlas), 1520 Min (03 Kanals and 19 Marlas), 1508 Min (04 Kanals and 04 Marlas), 1508 Min (02 Kanals and 16 Marlas), 1508 Min (04 Kanals), 1508 Min (04 Kanals), 1514 Min (05 Kanals and 08 Marlas), 1525 Min (11 Kanals and 11 Marlas) and 1506 Min (07 Kanals) situate at Village Ranbirgarh, Srinagar recorded as ‘Maidani’ situate at Sozeth, Goripora, Tehsils Narbal and Ranbirgarh, Srinagar, which is recorded as ‘Nambal’ and ‘Maidani’ in the revenue records, so as to enable them to make the said land cultivable or develop the same into an Orchard or use it for any industrial or commercial activity and earn a better living, guaranteed to them by Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
3. In the Writ Petition, it was contended that the Writ Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6/Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein are owners in possession of land measuring 32 Kanals and 05 Marlas covered under different Survey numbers situate at Village Suzeth Goripora, Tehsil Narbal, District Budgam, recorded as ‘Nambal’ in the revenue records, whileas, the Writ Petitioner Nos. 7 to 11/Respondent Nos. 7 to 11 herein were claimed to be owners in possession of land measuring 99 Kanals and 12 Marlas covered under different Survey numbers situate at Village Rambirgarh, Srinagar, recorded as ‘Maidani’ in the revenue records.
4. The Applicants/Appellants herein, in their application seeking impleadment as party Respondents in the Writ Petition, claimed that their interests are involved in the Writ Petition being the owners of land comprising of Khasra Nos. 1503, 1506, 1514 and 1520 falling adjacent to the land of the Petitioners. It was further pleaded that the land which forms the subject matter of the Writ Petition is ‘Abi Awal’ and that no construction is permissible on such land. The Appellants had also contended that two Marlas of their land under Khasra No. 1521 has been encroached upon by the Writ Petitioners. Besides, the Applicants/Appellants herein also questioned the construction raised by the Writ Petitioners over the
In Writ Petitions, necessary parties are those vitally affected by the decision sought, and the concept of necessary party is wider than in Civil Suits.
The court ruled that all necessary parties must be included for effective adjudication of land rights, allowing family members to join the writ petition.
The court clarified the criteria for necessary parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that a party's independent claim does not warrant inclusion in a suit if it do....
The court's decision was influenced by the prima facie interest demonstrated by the respondent in the suit property, which justified the dismissal of one petition and the allowance of the other.
A third party cannot be joined as an additional appellant in a writ appeal without the existing appellant's consent, preserving procedural integrity and avoiding conflicting interests.
Impleadment as part defendant in suit – Legal claim of petitioner cannot be defeated merely on the ground of delay or advance stage of proceeding of suit.
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
