ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7339 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7339 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7339 OF 2008 Shripat Mahadu Patil & Ors. ...Petitioners. Vs. Chief Land & Surveyor, CIDCO Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Nitin Mulye for the Petitioners. None for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 24th October, 2008. : 24th October, 2008. : 24th October, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . The Petitioners have challenged common order whereby various applications filed by the Applicants- persons interested in the Suit land under Order 1 Rule 8(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "CPC") have been allowed and permitted them to participate in the proceedings. 2. The Suit Property is Survey No.215/0 admeasuring about 2H 41 Are, Survey No.228/0 admeasuring about 4H 83 Are and Survey No.269/0 admeasuring about 1H 63.9 Are, are the lands belonging to Village Murbipada. 3. As alleged, on 09/10/1984, the lands were acquired by the Government and an award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Centre No.2, ( 2 ) Panvel in Owe Case No. 180. The amount received under the said Award was distributed by the Villagers amongst themselves. Even some of the amount received as compensation was utilized for laying pipelines to supply water to the village. The possession of the said lands were given by one Kashinath Vitthal Patil on behalf of the Villagers. The name of Mr.Kashinath Vitthal Patil was entered in the records of right as Villagers Panch and he did not have any individual interest in the said lands. 4. On 26/03/1996 said Kashinath Vitthal Patil expired and since he was not having any children, his real brother Gotiram Vitthal Patil was his only heir. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 surreptitiously entered their name in the records of rights claiming to be heir of said Mr.Kashinath Vitthal Patil. On the basis of their names appearing in the record of rights, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in collusion with Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 got possession of Plot No.1-A admeasuring about 7749 square meters in Section-A of Kharghar Node. In fact, during the lifetime of said Kashinath Vitthal Patil, he had applied to the Office-bearers of CIDCO for allotting plot under 121/2 % scheme in lieu of acquisition of said three lands. ( 3 ) 5. On 10/04/2008, as alleged, CIDCO executed agreement for lease in favour of said Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 which is illegal. When the said plot was allotted to Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, they tried to lure some of the Villagers, so that they should not raise any objection to the said allotment. When the Petitioners came to know regarding this fact, they went to the Office of the CIDCO to enquire regarding the same and after examining the records in File 209-A, said illegal act on behalf of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 came in light. Thereafter, the Petitioner came to know that Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are trying to alienate said plot to some of the Builders for a huge amount. 6. On 06/06/2008, the Petitioner sent notice on behalf of themselves, as well as, on behalf of the Villagers through Advocate to Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and demanded cancellation of lease deed regarding said plot which has been executed on 10/04/2008 and to allot the said plot to the Villagers and enter into lease agreement accordingly. Said notice was received by Respondent No.4, but Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 did ( 4 ) not give any reply. 7. On 13/06/2008, the Petitioners, therefore, filed R.C.S. No.138 of 2008 in the Court of Learned C.J.J.D., Panvel against Respondent Nos.1 to 6 in representative capacity for declaration and injunction against the Respondents. The Petitioners also filed an application below Exhibit 5 in R.C.S. No. 138 of 2008 for temporary injunction. 8. On 13/06/2008, the learned incharge IInd Joint C.J.J.D., Panvel was pleased to pass an exparte ad-interim order of injunction on the said application below Exhibit 5 in R.C.S.No. 138 of 2008. 9. On 26/06/2008, the Petitioners filed an application under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for granting permission to sue and prosecute the said Suit in representative capacity. 10. On 27/06/2008, the said application filed by the Petitioners for permission to prosecute the said R.C.S.No. 138 of 2008 in a representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was granted. ( 5 ) 11. On 07/07/2008, accordingly, an advertisement was published in the local newspapers. 12. On 11/07/2008, Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 in R.C.S.No. 138 of 2008 filed their written statement and reply to the temporary injunction application. Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 herein filed an application below Exhibit 29 in R.C.S.No.138 of 2008 for being added as Defendants in the said Suit. 13. On 04/08/2008, Respondent Nos. 9 to 32 filed an application below Exhibit 36. Respondent Nos. 33 to 70 filed an application below Exhibit 38. Respondent Nos. 71 to 79 filed an application below Exhibit 42. Respondent Nos. 80 to 100 filed an application below Exhibit 46. Respondent Nos. 101 to 129 filed an application below Exhibit 50 in said R.C.S.No. 138 of 2008 and in all these applications, it was prayed that they may be added as Defendants in the Suit and be permitted to file their written statement. On 11/08/2008, Respondent Nos. 130 to 146 filed an application below Exhibit 55 in R.C.S.No.138 of ( 6 ) 2008. 14. The Petitioners filed replies to the aforesaid applications, Exhibit 29, 6, 38, 42, 46, 50 and 55. 15. On 28/08/2008, the learned IInd Joint C.J.J.D., Panvel by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 28/08/2008 was pleased to allow all the applications filed by the various Respondents below Exhibit 29, 36, 38, 42, 46, 50, 55 in R.C.S. No. 138 of 2008. Hence the present Writ Petition. 16. Considering the above facts and circumstances and the dispute as raised and as per the Order of the Court, the Plaintiffs had issued public notice in Daily Newspaper on 07/07/2008 and as Applicants- villagers of village Murbipada being person interested have been rightly allowed to participate in the Suit as Defendants. Only because the present suit, is now, in representation capacity that itself is not sufficient to disregard such applications, when there are various facets/ factors need to be defended or agitated against the contesting opposite parties, in all respects, by the Villagers. 17. The Court has already allowed other villagers’ such ( 7 ) applications. Though, there is no relief claimed against these added parties/ Defendants, yet as public notice was issued and as averred, they want to participate in the proceedings that itself shows that they have no trust and they have apprehension that the Plaintiffs or persons already on record are not acting in the interest of all other villagers. This provision itself provides that when a person invoking the power under sub Rule (3) moves such application and the Court satisfied and permit such person to participate in the proceedings, I see there is no reason to interfere in the said order specially at the instance of the Plaintiffs, who even otherwise, claiming to have initiated the proceedings for the people at large. 18. To settle such dispute, as early as possible, by giving full representation to the persons whose interest are involved and when the dispute is raised on behalf of the entire villagers of Murbipada and to supports their interest if they want to participate to defend their rights, I see there is no reason to interfere with the said reasoned order specially considering the peculiar nature of facts and circumstances of the case. Once there is a material to justify that their interest will be affected and any adverse decision would cause ( 8 ) prejudice and as the Application is moved immediately after due publication of public notice in local newspaper and as the Court has already exercised the discretion, the Judgments as cited by the Petitioner i.e. Balaram Balaram Balaram Palai Palai Palai & Ors. Vs. Collector, Puri & Ors., AIR 1994 & Ors. Vs. Collector, Puri & Ors., AIR 1994 & Ors. Vs. Collector, Puri & Ors., AIR 1994 Orissa Orissa Orissa 21, Vasant Tricamji & Co. Vs. Ismailbhai Shivji, 21, Vasant Tricamji & Co. Vs. Ismailbhai Shivji, 21, Vasant Tricamji & Co. Vs. Ismailbhai Shivji, 1909, 1909, 1909, the Bombay Law Reporter Vol. XI page 1054 and the Bombay Law Reporter Vol. XI page 1054 and the Bombay Law Reporter Vol. XI page 1054 and T.G.Jog T.G.Jog T.G.Jog Vs. Muir Mills Ltd., 1952 Indian Law Reports, Vs. Muir Mills Ltd., 1952 Indian Law Reports, Vs. Muir Mills Ltd., 1952 Indian Law Reports, Calcutta Calcutta Calcutta Series, Page 171 Series, Page 171 Series, Page 171 are of no assistance. Those cases are distinct and distinguishable on the fact itself. By these provisions, rights has been conferred on all persons who have interest in the Suit Property and would affect their rights and interest if not represented properly by the person who have filed the suit. 19. It be noted that this addition and permission to participate in the proceedings should not be permitted to delay the whole matter for want of service or notice or individual hearing. The whole object should be to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible. The added parties must co-operate and participate, if they desire, but with intention for early disposal by making representative and common submission/arguments and hearing. Henceforth they should themselves participate and attend the proceedings without further delay and or ( 9 ) adjournment. In the circumstances, the suit is expedited in the interest of all. 20. In view of above, Writ Petition is dismissed in limine. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)