SAI DEVELOPERS Vs. REVENUE SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Special Civil Application is filed praying for the following reliefs:-

(2.) The factual matrix of the present case is that the subject lands was owned by the respondent nos.3 to 22 herein. That, the respondent no.2 herein entered into Banakhat dtd. 19/10/1993 in respect of the subject lands with the erstwhile owners. That, thereafter the respondent no.2 erstwhile owners enter into M.O.U., dtd. 12/4/1999. It is alleged by the respondent no.2 that he was put in possession of the subject lands pursuant to execution of Banakhat dtd. 19/10/1999. That, the dispute arose between the parties. The respondent no.2 filed Regular Civil Suit No.982 of 2010 before the Civil Judge, Vadodara against the respondent nos.3 to 22. That, the erstwhile owners i.e. the respondent nos.3 to 22 have applied for NA permission. The Collector, Vadodara granted NA permission vide orders dated 03 01.2020 and 2/7/2020 in respect of the three subject lands. That, thereafter the petitioner herein purchased the subject lands from the respondent nos.3 to 22 on 3/9/2020 and 13/3/2020. That, upon purchase of subject lands by the petitioner, the respondent no.2 filed an application under Rule-10, Order-1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, in the pending Civil Suit No.982 of 2010 for impleading the petitioner as party respondent. The Civil Court, Vadodara pleased to reject the said application by the order dtd. 21/11/2020.

(3.) Learned senior counsel Mr. M. S. Shah appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is without jurisdiction as the same does not mention any condonation of delay. He submits that the learned SSRD could not have passed any order in the Revision Application No.MVV/BKHP/ Vdd/11/2022 without first condoning delay and allowing the condonation of delay application as preferred by the respondent no.2. He submits that the impugned order is bad in law. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent no.2 has deliberately not joined the petitioner as a party respondent in the revision proceedings before the learned SSRD even though he was well aware with the fact that the petitioner had purchased the subject lands along with NA permission. Further, the respondent no.2 had also tried to implead the present petitioner in the pending Civil Suit proceedings initiated by him which were rejected by the learned Trial Court. He submits that the impugned order has the effect of setting aside the order of NA permission granted by the Collector in respect of subject lands which have been purchased by the petitioner for valuable consideration. He submits that the petitioner ought to have been made a party to the proceeding before the learned SSRD and that, the impugned order ought not to have been passed without hearing the petitioner. He therefore submits that the impugned judgment and order is bad in law and be set aside. The Revision Application No.MVV/BKHP/Vdd/11/2022 be heard afresh after permitting the petitioner herein to be a party respondent to the said proceedings.