Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
No Right to be Impleaded - Encroachers generally do not have an automatic right to be impleaded as parties in PILs unless their rights are directly affected. The courts emphasize that only persons whose rights or interests are materially impacted by the proceedings can be added as parties ["BHULLAN RAM vs STATE OF U.P. AND 11 OTHERS - Allahabad"].
Requirement of Material Impact - The principle is that parties should be impleaded if their rights or interests are likely to be affected by the outcome of the case. For instance, a person claiming rights over property or land must demonstrate that the litigation directly impacts their legal rights ["Mukesh Mul Chand Ji Purohit S/o Shri Mul Chand VS Anand Kumar, Secretary, Department Of Revenue - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 126"], ["Rajesh S/o Late Shri Banshilal Pathak VS Abbas Ali S/o Fakrudin Bohra - Rajasthan"], ["KANSING KALUSING THAKORE vs RABARI MAGANBHAI VASHRAMBHAI . - Supreme Court"].
Proper and Necessary Parties - Courts reiterate that only proper or necessary parties, who have a direct interest or whose rights are affected, should be impleaded. Mere association or indirect interest is insufficient. The courts also have discretion under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC to add or strike out parties to ensure effective adjudication ["Rajalaxmi Sahu vs Tarini Prasad Rath - Orissa"], ["Hari Chand Suthar S/o Sh. Hukmaram VS Rehmat W/o Late Sh. Guam Kadir Junea - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 138"].
Encroachers and PILs - In cases involving encroachments, courts have initiated proceedings under relevant revenue laws against encroachers, but these parties are not automatically entitled to be impleaded unless their rights are affected. If encroachers' rights are not directly impacted, they generally do not have a right to be included ["KANSING KALUSING THAKORE vs RABARI MAGANBHAI VASHRAMBHAI . - Supreme Court"], ["KAMAL KHAN vs STATE OF U P AND 5 OTHERS - Allahabad"].
Impact of Non-Implementation - The courts have consistently held that if a person's rights are not affected by the proceedings, they cannot claim a right to be impleaded. The courts focus on whether the party's legal interests are materially affected, not on their desire to participate ["Ghanshyam Sharma vs Lalit Gupta - Madhya Pradesh"], ["KANSING KALUSING THAKORE vs RABARI MAGANBHAI VASHRAMBHAI . - Supreme Court"].
Conclusion - Encroachers have no inherent right to be impleaded in PILs unless their rights or interests are directly and materially affected by the proceedings. The courts prioritize the protection of parties with a genuine stake, and mere encroachment status alone does not confer a right to participate ["BHULLAN RAM vs STATE OF U.P. AND 11 OTHERS - Allahabad"], ["Mukesh Mul Chand Ji Purohit S/o Shri Mul Chand VS Anand Kumar, Secretary, Department Of Revenue - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 126"].
References:- ["KANSING KALUSING THAKORE vs RABARI MAGANBHAI VASHRAMBHAI . - Supreme Court"]- ["BHULLAN RAM vs STATE OF U.P. AND 11 OTHERS - Allahabad"]- ["Mukesh Mul Chand Ji Purohit S/o Shri Mul Chand VS Anand Kumar, Secretary, Department Of Revenue - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 126"]- ["Rajalaxmi Sahu vs Tarini Prasad Rath - Orissa"]- ["KANSING KALUSING THAKORE vs RABARI MAGANBHAI VASHRAMBHAI . - Supreme Court"]- ["Ghanshyam Sharma vs Lalit Gupta - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["KANSING KALUSING THAKORE vs RABARI MAGANBHAI VASHRAMBHAI . - Supreme Court"]- ["KAMAL KHAN vs STATE OF U P AND 5 OTHERS - Allahabad"]
Public Interest Litigations (PILs) play a crucial role in safeguarding public rights and addressing systemic issues in India. However, they are not open forums for every individual grievance. A common question arises: Encroachers have no right to be impleaded as parties in the PIL as no right of theirs are affected. This query touches on the boundaries of locus standi, party impleadment, and the core purpose of PILs.
In this post, we delve into the legal principles governing whether encroachers—those occupying public or government land unlawfully—can join PIL proceedings. Drawing from key court judgments, we'll explore why they typically cannot, exceptions that may apply, and practical insights. Note: This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Encroachers generally do not have a right to be impleaded as parties in PILs unless their rights are directly affected or they qualify as necessary or proper parties for effective adjudication. Sukh Ram Didel S/o Shri Hari Ram VS Narpat Singh S/o Late Bhanwar Singh Parmar - 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 144 Merely being an encroacher does not grant automatic involvement, particularly when no specific rights are at stake. Mukesh Mul Chand Ji Purohit S/o Shri Mul Chand VS Anand Kumar, Secretary, Department Of Revenue - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 126
PILs focus on public importance, not individual disputes. Courts emphasize that PILs are primarily for addressing issues of public importance, not for resolving disputes involving individual rights unless those rights are directly impacted. Balaji Nagar Vikas Samiti VS Jodhpur Development Authority - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 1932
To understand this, consider these foundational rules:
PILs evolved to protect public rights, not private claims. Courts guard against misuse: PILs should not be used as a substitute for civil or criminal proceedings involving private rights. Balaji Nagar Vikas Samiti VS Jodhpur Development Authority - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 1932 This prevents dilution of public-focused litigation.
In encroachment cases on public land, PILs often seek removal without delving into individual title disputes, directing such matters to appropriate forums.
By definition, encroachers occupy land unlawfully. Their claims rarely hold unless backed by legal or constitutional rights directly threatened. For instance, in a PIL for removing encroachments on Khasra Nos. 498 and 536, the court noted: Since the complete facts are not before us nor the persons, who are alleged to be encroachers have been impleaded in this petition, we would observe by way of abundant caution that all those persons, as mentioned in... BABU SINGH Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN This highlights caution but doesn't mandate impleadment without necessity.
Similarly, Encroachers, unless their rights are specifically affected or they are necessary parties for the effective adjudication of the matter, do not have an automatic right to be impleaded. Sukh Ram Didel S/o Shri Hari Ram VS Narpat Singh S/o Late Bhanwar Singh Parmar - 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 144
Courts dismiss claims from those without direct stakes: Locus standi requires that a person challenging an act or order must have suffered or be suffering some legal injury. Encroachers, unless their rights are affected, do not qualify as aggrieved persons. AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN PATHAN VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 2012 7 Supreme 716
In forest land encroachments, religious sentiments don't justify claims: Encroachment on government forest land cannot be justified by religious sentiments; legal permission is mandatory for any claims over such land. Shankar Lal, S/o. Shri Chanda Lal Meena VS State of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Jaipur - 2024 Supreme(Raj) 950 The court directed removal, underscoring no automatic rights.
Personal stakes disqualify PIL participation: A person who shows personal interest, such as purchasing a plot, cannot pursue PIL as they are not a proper party. Ajeet Singh Singhvi VS State of Rajasthan - 2005 0 Supreme(Raj) 3324 Encroachers with mere possession claims fall here.
In another context, purchasers must be impleaded if affected, but sellers or non-parties without rights aren't: The respondent has not only failed to implead them as party to the complaint but has also not placed on record any affidavit... Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. , Through Shri V. D. Bansal, Executive Engineer (O & M) VS Balu Ram
Limited scenarios allow impleadment:
However, parties who are likely to be affected if the relief as sought for is granted, must be impleaded... in the absence of impleading them as parties, no order could be issued. Hafizullaha Mir VS State of Jammu and Kashmir - 2015 Supreme(J&K) 22 Mere allegation isn't enough.
Other cases reinforce: In REZ regularization, no rights arose from temporary engagement. Hafizullaha Mir VS State of Jammu and Kashmir - 2015 Supreme(J&K) 22 Lis pendens doesn't bind non-parties automatically. Siddagangaiah VS N. K. Giriraja Shetty - 2014 Supreme(Kar) 705
Courts urge: Confine PILs to public interest, involving parties only if substantially affected.
Encroachers typically have no right to be impleaded in PILs without direct rights impact or necessity for adjudication. This upholds PIL integrity while channeling private disputes elsewhere. Mukesh Mul Chand Ji Purohit S/o Shri Mul Chand VS Anand Kumar, Secretary, Department Of Revenue - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 126
Key Takeaways:- PILs prioritize public over private rights. Balaji Nagar Vikas Samiti VS Jodhpur Development Authority - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 1932- Prove legal injury for locus standi. AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN PATHAN VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 2012 7 Supreme 716- Exceptions are narrow; judicial discretion prevails.- Mere encroachment status insufficient.
Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence. For tailored advice, consult legal experts. Share your thoughts below!
References (Selected):- Sukh Ram Didel S/o Shri Hari Ram VS Narpat Singh S/o Late Bhanwar Singh Parmar - 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 144, Balaji Nagar Vikas Samiti VS Jodhpur Development Authority - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 1932, AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN PATHAN VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 2012 7 Supreme 716, Mukesh Mul Chand Ji Purohit S/o Shri Mul Chand VS Anand Kumar, Secretary, Department Of Revenue - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 126, Ajeet Singh Singhvi VS State of Rajasthan - 2005 0 Supreme(Raj) 3324, Hari Chand Suthar S/o Sh. Hukmaram VS Rehmat W/o Late Sh. Guam Kadir Junea - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 138, BABU SINGH Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN, Shankar Lal, S/o. Shri Chanda Lal Meena VS State of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Jaipur - 2024 Supreme(Raj) 950, PRERNA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS HAKIM SINGH YADAV - 2016 Supreme(All) 12, Hafizullaha Mir VS State of Jammu and Kashmir - 2015 Supreme(J&K) 22
#PILIndia, #EncroachmentLaw, #LocusStandi
The grievance raised through this Public Interest Litigation is that a large number of persons/encrochers have encroached upon the public land comprising in Khasra Nos. 498 and 536 situated at Village Odwara, Tehsil- Ahore ... Since the complete facts are not before us nor the persons, who are alleged to be encroachers have been impleaded in this petition, we would observe by way of abundant caution that all those persons, as mentioned in ... Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier when a PIL was file....
Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and taking the note of the fact that the proceedings under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006 have already been initiated against the encrochers, the Court is of ... . - 37 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1499 of 2023 Petitioner :- Bhullan Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. ... The present writ in the nature of PIL has raised the issue regarding illegal encroachment over pond contained in Arazi No. 1005 area 0.530 hectare si....
Manoj Bhandari, learned Senior Advocate for newly impleaded respondents. 4. ... It goes without saying that whenever a person is going to be adversely affected by any proceeding or order, he is entitled to an opportunity of hearing. However, we are unable to entertain the complaint made by these 200 persons in this contempt petition. ... Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 10819/2018], disposed off the writ petition with the observation that the petitioner may approach the Public Land Protection Cell (‘PLPC’ for short) of District Jalore consti....
In Kasturi [(2005) 6 SCC 733] this Court reiterated the position that necessary parties and proper parties can alone seek to be impleaded as parties to a suit for specific performance. ... Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the Code”, for short), which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary #HL_START....
. - 30 According to paragraph 5 of the affidavit, proceedings have been initiated against the encrochers
. - 49 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2107 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt Urmila Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. ... Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the report is of 3.5.2023, but till date no encroachment has been removed either by the encrochers or no action has been taken by the authorities for the removal of the said
parties/land-owners are free to approach appropriate authority for enforcement of their legal and which was directed only against Sadananda Gowda and later Jeevaraj was impleaded ... A writ of mandamus is issued in favour of a HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (PIL ... Sole petitioner-Dhananjay Pathak has filed this writ petition (PIL) p style="position:absolute;white-space:pre;margin:0;padding:0;top:801pt
Revenue Code, 2006, the rights of the alleged encrochers under section 67-A are liable to be considered. 6. ... . - 9 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1057 of 2023 Petitioner :- Chandrajit Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Tarachand and Shabbeer respectively through Agreements to Sale which are placed on record before this Court and, therefore, if any judgment is passed detriment to her, her rights would be adversely affected and thus she has right to say in the suit and is rightly impleaded. ... Akila Bai (respondent No. 3 herein), though under Agreements to Sale, thus the respondent No. 3 has right atleast to have a say in the suit and has been rightly impleaded as party defendant as she is a necessary and a proper part....
DB PIL Petition No.14483/2019 and SB Civil Writ Petition No.17/22 pertain to Khasra Nos.2145, 2064, 2148 & 2191, directions were given to list S.B. CWP No.17/22 alongwith D.B. PIL Petition No.14483/2019. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, both the petitions were heard. ... It is contended by counsel for the petitioner in DB PIL Petition No.14483/2019 that respondent No.4 has no right to make encroachment of ghair-mumkin pahad without seeking approval of the Forest Department which was....
He submits that it is the sole discretion of the plaintiff to implead or not to implead a person as a party in the suit and in case he has not impleaded a necessary party in the suit, his suit may either be dismissed for non impleadment of necessary party or even if it is decreed the decree shall not be a binding on a person who is not a party to the suit. He, therefore, submits that in these circumstances, neither any right of the revisionist stands affected at this stage nor he has any right to be impleaded as a defendant in the suit of the present plaintiff-respondent No. 1.#HL_....
The said persons are not shown as party respondents in these writ appeals. As rightly contended by the respective counsel for the respondents, the parties who are likely to be affected if the relief as sought for is granted, must be impleaded as party respondents and in the absence of impleading them as parties, no order could be issued even assuming that there is any right available to the appellants to agitate. Hence on this ground also the writ appeals cannot be entertained apart from not establishing any merit in the contention to allow the writ appeals.
He has no right to be impleaded as a party in such suit. It is this principle, which is referred to by learned counsel on the basis of the Judgment of the Apex Court, Sanjay Verma vs. Whenever the principles of Section 52 is applicable in respect of a transaction made during the pendency of the suit, the transfer is said to be void and it is not binding on the parties to the suit, a person who purchases the property is not a necessary party to the suit.
Whenever the principles of Section 52 is applicable in respect of a transaction made during the pendency of the suit, the transfer is said to be void and it is not binding on the parties to the suit, a person who purchases the property is not a necessary party to the suit. It is this principle, which is referred to by learned Counsel on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sanjay Verma v Manik Roy and Others, AIR 2007 SC 1332 : (2006) 13 SCC 608 : 2007 AIR SCW 1490. He has no right to be impleaded as a party in such suit. The aforesaid principle does not apply to ....
The respondent has not only failed to implead them as party to the complaint but has also not placed on record any affidavit or “No objection” from the present owners of the land to transfer of the connection as sought by the respondent. 14. State Commission while allowing the appeal has observed that “the objections which are being raised by the respondents infact should have been raised by the purchasers who are affected by this.” The respondent, thus, is trying to take advantage of the fact that the connection continues in his name, as the present owners of the land have not got it transf....
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
