BANSHIDHAR Vs. PHED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-petitioners have come up by way of this revision petition against the order dated 30. 9. 1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Behror District Alwar in Civil Misc. Case No. 112/99 (Suit No. 120/99) whereby the application of the defendant-respondent filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was allowed.

(2.) ON 31. 7. 1999, the plaintiffs-petitioners had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against the respondent No. 1 claiming relief to the effect that the said respondent be restrained from dispossessing the petitioners from the land in dispute described in para No. 2 of the plaint and also from interfering with their possession either by raising any construction of a water tank over the disputed land and also the relief of mandatory injunction to the effect that the defendant PHED should not get any sale deed executed in its favour in respect of the disputed property. The petitioners further averred in the plaint that the land bearing Khasra No. 146 (old) measuring 15 biswas and present Khasra No. 188 situated in village Vijay Singh Pura, Tehsil Behror has been described in the revenue records as `gair Mumkin Abadi' which has been in possession of the ancestors of the petitioners, who had already raised construction of the houses thereon and since then they are in possession and of its use. The disputed land was regularised vide order dated 9. 7. 1975 in favour of father of petitioner No. 1 and grand father of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and an order had also been passed for issuance of Patta of the said land to the petitioners which had been in their possession since time immemorial. Their further case is that respondent No. 1 allegedly in collusion with the authorities had started to raise construction of water tank over the disputed land. Since, the disputed land does not belong to any authority or respondent No. 1, as such, the said respondent was not entitled to seek execution of any Patta of the land in question from any local authority. Alternatively, it was pleaded that if respondent No. 1 had got any legal document executed in its favour from any local authority, then the same would not be binding or legal and is null and void.

(3.) IN the matter of M/s Aliji Monoji and Co. (supra) the similar question which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court, the controversy was that landlord who had a direct and substantial interest in a particular property before its demolition, was a necessary party to be impleaded to the proceedings since in the event of demolition of the property held by him, his right, title and interest to the property would be adversely effected? The Apex Court observed that under the circumstances, the landlord was a necessary and proper party to the proceedings though the relief sought for was against the Municipal Corporation for perpetual injunction restraining it from demolishing the building. It was held by the Apex Court that notwithstanding the fact that the contesting respondents were necessary and proper party to be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, yet, its provisions would not be attracted to the case unless it was established that the landlord was having direct and substantial interest in the demised premises before its demolition.