FAJAR AHMAD Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsels for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to an order dated 7.9.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (3rd F.T.C.), Haridwar on an application moved by the applicants/petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of C.P.C. for impleading them as party. This application being rejected by the court below, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition challenging the validity, legality and propriety of the said order dated 7.9.2007.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh had filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 30.6.1970 between S.P.G. Mission and Amanulla Khan. The suit was dismissed and consequently an appeal was filed which was pending before the Additional District Judge/IIIrd FTC, Haridwar, as referred above, being Appeal No. 498 of 1994 (New No. 16 of 1998). It was during the pendency of the appeal that the applicants/petitioners have moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. stating that the applicants being the necessary party have not been made party in the suit as defendants. The rights over the disputed property were claimed by the applicants on the strength of their claim that they are recorded as non-occupancy tenants under category 10. Since they are non- occupancy tenant and have certain rights on the property, they were liable to be made a party in the suit instituted by the State of Uttar Pradesh. Apart from this, it is an undisputed fact that earlier Sri Amanulla Khan who was the defendant in the suit had filed a suit for declaration under Section 229 B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 in which the applicants were made party and the suit was withdrawn and thereafter a regular suit for declaration was filed. Again the present applicants/petitioners were made party as defendants. Since they were made a party in the suit filed by Sri Amanulla Khan, the petitioners contend that it was necessary that in the suit filed against Amanulla Khan, they should also be made a party by the State.