GURDEEP SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS KAPURTHALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land in the hands of Darshan Singh was declared surplus by the Collector Agrarian on 26.3.1975. The said surplus land was allotted to the petitioners on 12.1.1994 by the Collector. The said allotment became the subject-matter of appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. The allotment in favour of the present petitioners was upheld vide order dated 22.11.1994. Subsequent revision before the Financial Commissioner was also dismissed on 23.7.2001. However, the claim of the petitioners in the said revision petition claiming to be tenant was remanded for examination of the Collector.

(2.) Thereafter, a suit has been filed by the present plaintiffs, respondents No.2 to 4 herein, challenging the order passed by the Collector declaring the land surplus on the ground that they are the owners of the suit land on the basis of consent decree suffered by Darshan Singh in their favour on 11.5.1972. In the said suit, the petitioners who were allotted land in the year 1994 moved an application for impleadment in the said suit as defendants in terms of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The learned Trial Court has declined such application. The challenge in the present revision petition is to such an order passed by the learned Trial Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that since the petitioners are the allottees of the surplus land their interests are vitally effected in a suit challenging the order of declaration of land as surplus therefore, they are proper and necessary parties. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Ram Saran Dass and others Vs .The Punjab State and Another 1972 P.L.J. 213 and Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others Vs. Smt.Kela Devi and Another 1980 P.L.J. 121 to contend that the possession has not been delivered to the petitioners and therefore, utilisation of surplus area is not complete. Thus, the petitioners have no right to seek impleadment as defendants in the suit. Reliance is also placed on Man Mohan Singh Vs. Shri Sat Narain and another 1971 P.L.R. 525 wherein the principles to be taken into consideration for deciding an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been detailed.