AHMAD ABDUIIAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the aforesaid three writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order as the subject matters of both the writ petitions are the same, namely Motipur Sugar Factory Limited and the reliefs claimed by them are also similar in nature. The writ petitioners of CWJC No. 8840 of 2006 are the affected employees of the Motipur Sugar Factory, whereas writ petitioner of CWJC No. 427 of 2008 is the Motipur Sugar Factory Limited itself, and the petitioners of CWJC No. 710 of 2011 are the five wakf estates. which claim to be the share holders of the aforesaid company and hence their interest is common and the points involved and the facts raised are also similar.

(2.) An interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 2771 of 2011 was filed in CWJC No. 427 of 2008 by one Dr. Kumar Praveen for being impleaded as party respondent to the said writ petition and for grant of relief in his favour, namely directing the respondents to make payment of remuneration against acquisition to the intervener applicant claiming to be the Power of Attorney Holder of one Saiyed Amjad Hussain (successor of late Nanhi Begum). It is claimed by the intervener that on 20.4.1898 one Thomas Barkali executed a lease in favour of Mostt. Nanhi Begum whose heirs had been raising claim from 1898 to 2005 and finally intervener had filed Title Suit No. 553 of 2009 in Muzaffarpur Civil Court, which has not been taken up as yet. There is nothing to show that on the basis of the alleged deed of lease dated 20.4.1898 Mostt. Nanhi Begum or her heir had ever raised any such dispute with respect to the right and possession of Motipur Sugar Factory Limited or its co-sharers (petitioners of both the writ petitions) and it was only in the year 2009 that one Saiyed Amjad Hussain alongwith intervener filed Title Suit No. 553 of 2009 for declaration of title of plaintiff no. 1 and non-title of the defendants and for restoration of possession of plaintiff no. 1. The documents annexed to the interlocutory application are all of the subsequent period of 2010 and 2011 which prima facie do not appear to prove any right, title or possession of Mostt. Nanhi Begum or her heirs, including. Saiyed Amjad Hussain. Moreover, this matter has to be considered by the title suit and unless an order/ judgment is passed by the trial court on the basis of pleadings of the parties and materials produced by them, no authenticity can be legally attributed to the claim of the intervener by any court or authority. Accordingly, the aforesaid interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 2771 of 2011 is rejected.

(3.) CWJC No. 8840 of 2006 was filed by the employees of the Motipur Sugar Factory Ltd. for the following relief: