7= H!OH COURT OF JUDJCATURE CKHATTiSGARH: BILASPUR W.P.(C) No. 1881 of 2007 Petitione.' Msssrs. iMaruti Ciean Coaland Power Limited Versus Respondents Soirth Eastern Coalfreld Limited & othere ^- Post for order on /^ May. 2007. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge -./• HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR W. P.(QNo. 1881 of 2007 Petitioner Messrs. Maruti Clean Coaland Power Limsted, Through Director, haviny Administrative, Office at Agarwai Bhawan, Vidya Nagar, Bitaspur, Chhattisgarh. Versus Rsspondsnts 1. South Eastern Coa'fletd Limitsd, Through the Chief Generai Manager. Gevra Area. Disfrict Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2. Go'/ernmeRt of Chhattisgarh, Through Uis Coiiector, Korba Chhattisgam. 3. Messrs. Karti'keya Coai Washeries Pr'yate Lsmited, having ite Corporate Office at 18, Vasant Enciave, Rao Tuiaram Marg, Hwf os'hma)57 WRIT PETiTSON UNDERARTiCLE 227 OF THE COSTlTUTiONOF JNDiA * U/sn'l^ii^ fiSv I> w'l^^^t C!»»4*.¥*|f»l^ A.!^i»*ali»j^4R'i . nvii i^l^ Ivii. Uu^Ut^s? ^ciU5»ilr^> j'lyiilij^Bi.i gg. i-iQp'yg n^ Shri B. P. Sharma, Advoeate for the petitioner. Shri P. S. Nair and Shri H. B. Agrawa!, Senior Advocates with Shri P. S. Koshy and Shri Pakaj Agrawal, Advocates for the respondent No.1. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2. Shri K. N. Bhatt and Shri P. &"«vakar, Senior Advocates witti Shri Kulbharat and Shri P. R. Patankar, Advocate for ths respondsnt No.3. 1. ORDER (Passed on this ^H(upt May, 2007) By Shis petiSon undsr Ariide 227 of the Constitution of India the petiBoner impugns the order datsd 21.2.2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Civii Judge Class-ii, Katghora, district- Korba in Civil Suit No. 90- A/2004, wherein and wtiereby the applicafion of the respondent No.3, filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. was aliowed for impleading the applicant as necessar/ party in ttie suit fited by the respondent No.l/plainttff. < • 2. 3. 4. 5. The indisputabte facte, in nutshe!!, are that the respondent No.l/plaintiff fited a suit for deciaration and pemianent injunctJOR in regard to the land bearing Khasra No. 594, part 61 1 and 616, total area 37.91. situated at viltege - Ranti;a, wtiich v/as ailotted on leass {o She petitioner/defendant No.2. The ciaim of She pstjtioner for dectaration and permanent injuncfion was based on the facts that under fts prowsfons of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acqui'sition and Devslopment) fist, 1957 (herein after referred {o as 'the Ac{, 1957'), after notification issued underthe provisions ofSection 4 and Secfen 8 ofthe Act, 1957 the disputed iand vested in the Cenfra! Government by virtue of the prowsions of Section 11 of the AcS, 1957 and as such She said iand got vested !'n the piaintiff/Coa! Fields/Respondent No.1 Thus the suit wss filed on 9.12.2004 (Annexurs P/2) against ttie State Governmsnt and the pefflioner v/as also impieaded as party bscause the said land was aitottsd to ttie petitioner/defendant No,2 on tease bythe Stats Government. In the pendina sui$. the nev/ly impleaded defendanS No.3i'rsspondent No.3 filed an application under Order 1 Ruje 10 of the C.P.C. to impiead the respondent No.3 as a party/defsndant on the ^yf/<»ty»rt+h^i* fK-Q ?'iS'aP»ft*ft<nlA"t Mirl ^ ^s'si Fyi's/'la •ay* ciF»F'l*^'i'sf?/^y ^n ^ht^ ^S^a^^s yivyiiu uidi yi'c; ies»^ivUwSiil itV.^/ iici's? iiioy^ rifi <3^^ii^«Uvii li^ iiic Government for allotment of remaining 13 scres of iand from the same Khasra numbers v/hjch were Envolv'ed in the psnding suit. Lsamed Court betow after having considered the srgufnents of isarned counsel appearirsg for the parttes came to the conclusion that the respondent No.3 v/ouid substanSially be affected by the decfeion in the pending suit. '^%^ 6. Shri B. P. Sharma, leamedcounse! appearing for the petitioner would submit fr.st the respondent No.3, which has fited the applteation under Order 1 Rule 10, was neither a necessar/ nor proper party, as it has nothing to do v/ith the iand in questjon jn the pending civi! suit The remaining part for which the respondent No.3 has made an application to the State Government for aliotmenS to the respondent No.3 has nothing to do wsSh the subjsct mattsr of the suit. 7. Shri P. S. Nair & Shri H. B. Agrawai, iearned senior counsel with Shri P. S. Koshy & Shri Pankaj Agrawal, tearned counsel appearing for ttie piaintiff/respondent No.1 would siipport the case of the petitioner and the plaintiff/respondent No.1 has submiaed in its refaam, as under:- "2.6 The respondent no. 3 filed an application for impteading as one of the defendant under Order-1. Rule-10 of She Code of Civii Procedure oniy on the ground that hs apptied for !ease of 13 Acres of land situated at Viilage-Nawagaon, Tehsi!-Pa!i, District Korba and bearing Khasra No. 850/23 OR tease basis from State Government. 1{ is submiSSed that by mers filing of an application for !ease does not confer any right upon the Rsspondent No.3 •n'hich couid be enforce in a court of iaw. Hov.'ever ths suit land is a different land situated in different Viliage-Ratija and therefore {t'.e application under Order-!, Ruie-10 shouid have been rejected. However learned Trial Court under grave misconceptjon of facte snd circumstances allowed the application ofthe respondent No.3 by' the impugned order." 8. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur. learned Government Advocate, appesring for the State Govemment ateo supported the contention of the piaintijf/respondent No.1 and the pefc'Soner. The State has submitted in it's retum, as under:- "3. before the Tria! in rsplied filed by the ansv/ering respondent Court opposing appiication of respondent No.3 for impteadment, it has been stated by the answering respondent that the !and for which the said respondent No.3 has moved an application for allotment bears 9. 10. 11. Khasra No. 693123 whereas the present suit pertains to Khasra No.s 850,'K), 850,'24. 850/31, 8K)/27, 850/28 and 850/32 area 37.91 acres situated at viiiage Ratija (Navagaonkhurd). It wsuld thus be ctear that the two parcete of iands being different fte rsspondent No.3 had no locus in interv'ene in the suit and ssek his impteadment as defendant. 4......,........!t is respectful'iy submittsd that ths respondent No.3 is not a propsr party for the purposes of frie !ands involved m ths sust !{is setBed law that any judgmenS passed in civil suit is Unding only upon the parties So the suit. therefore. fhe respondent No.3 w!i! not be affected in any manner with the result of the suit." Per contra. Shri K. N. Bhatt & Shri P. Diwakar, iearned senior counse! v/ift Shri Kutbharat & Shri P. R. Patankar, iearned counsel appearing for the respondenS No.3, would submit that it is frue that a part of She disputed Khasra iands have been alioSsd to ths petiSoner and the petitioner has made an application for aliotment of fr,e remaining !and. In case the remaining land i3 aliotted to the peStionsr, iri iuhirs, the respondent No.3 wouid substenttally be affectsd. Thus, in order to avoid multiplication of ths suit, the respondent No.3 is a proper and nscessary party to be impleaded in the suit. He would ftirther submit that the presence of ths respondent No.3 would heip the Court for proper adjudicafion of the dispute. ! have heard tesmed counse! appearing for the parties and perused the pteadings and documsnte, appended thsreto. The Court belo'A' has compietsly ionorsd frie fact Shat ths suit was fiisd vs.ith rsgard to the iand allotted to the petitioner on!y, may bs the tota! area of the iand in Khasra No. 584. 611, 666 is 58.S5 acres and out of 58.56 acres tota! area ailotted to ths petitioner/defendant No.2 was 37.91 acres. The plaintiff»'responden{ No.1 had sought for dsclaration and permanent injunctJOR in respect of onk/ 37.91 Acres of the tand, which was allotted to the petitioner. The retevant clause to that effect in plaint reads as under- " uRial<{'i v^Pv 2 qita qisrft tpH-ft t. yRlqi<?i ii5(Fft 'iWFi^. tinW^ l^yi ml'titil'S 'iTR ^R ^ tTwn in^w 4' ~3X3 W '•^ VSS^Q #\ Tpft t. 'iwSS^. ^. ••ftcR TOT •icll'ril q5t 1:tP? SWS 'H? 594 m[ WT 611 m VW 616 5)1 WtT -A- » SlllHCT 6. 12. \ • The Court below has furttier ignored the fact that the newly impleaded defendant No.3 was not altotted any iand till date. The respondent No.3 itseif in it's application ^nnexure R-3/2) has requesSed for allotment of 13 acres of remaining !and of Khasra No. 850/23. which. according So the respondent No.3. is new number ofthe same disputed !ar,d, at viliage Ratijn. It is beneScia! to quote She appiication ofthe respondent No.3, whteh is as under:- [Wn lMttrtiu<a' *(6Kq. 'nwi A. —FS- iqq<t :—(tilc-itltXI 6g>'*};t SHIIC'1 Sq,. (STCT, ?ai.<''iiiA<fa S^tqsi t fe T. . A. IPlR?Ctl<t <t''it?tttl^('?l 'Vm t^M ^' tWciqwi'R 'A 'y.iIlRI v^n •qisift t. 2. ?4' STRI ^K t fe '•ITO "wftuli ^ ^aw<( TR< 850/23 ^ 1-3 H'SS '^ feR( t. SR(; Itgtal ^ FiqG.H f fe ciiii^i ?^t fi-sNe^ w^ iBi ws tp$ •ciT^; 'uAiI ^t %fte( 'SWCT 'qft un •.a^. ^g ig, wi sittiTtlRchdt Ijnf ^i^ i% '^*t IgHfa ^ t. 1. 2. uiHCT wl ''wSu t|R''(l<.!tit uRt<i<*i. airai' r^ \ W6T/- SwV u(rt{ciR - 1. ^NTF( 3<^[nt(l<?(<< srfSiiSI^, qie^ 2. *(6(U«(&i>p {^Rff 'S'eftT '^S q?twi ^ SK'fSwp t?l4ctlil ^. " It is indisputable that ttie remaining tanc! admeasuring 13 acres 'A'hich v.'as not the subject matter of the dispute has not yet been aliottsd to the respondent No.3. The Hon'bte Supreme Court in Razia Bsgum v. Sahebzadi 13. 14. 15 16. Anwar Begum and others (AIR 1958 SC 886), vrfiile considering {hs question of addition of party in an appiication under order 1 Rute 10^) of the C.P.C. held as under:- "13 (2) ThaS in a suit reiating So property, in order {hat a person may be added as a party, he should have a direct interest as distingujshed from a commercia! interest, in the subject-matter of the litigatjon," The Hon'ble Supreme Court in J. J. Lal Pvt. LSd. and others Vs. F.I.R.MuraIi and another { (2002) 3 SCC 98} has observed that in the case of tiBe behi'/een two persons, She presence of thJrd party is neither necessary for the decision of the question involved, nor his presence Is necessary to enabie the Court effectualiy and completsly to adjudicate upon snd setfls the questions involved in the proceedings. !nthe case on hand, the basis question invoived is asto •A'hether the property whteh is aflotted to the pstitioner in qusstion vests i'n the respondsnt No.1 Coal Fieids or in the State Government in view of {he provisions of She fist. 1957 and aftsr the notification dated 9.11.198S under the provisions of Section 4 and 9 of ths said Act, 1957. WittiouS going into the merits of the case, as the same may prejudice the rights of the parfies,! am of the considsred opinkan that the respondent No.3 is nesther a necessary nor propsr party for adjudication of the question of law i'nvoived in the suit bearing No. 90- A/2004 (South Eastern Coa! Fields Ltd. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & another). _______--—-— 17. 18. There is apparent error and pswersity in the impugned order psssed by the Court below and the same dsserv'es to be set aside. !n the result, the pefiSion ss allowed. The order dated 21,2.2(X)7 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Civi! Judge Class-!!, Katghora, district- Korba in Civi! Suit No. 80-A,'2004, fe set aside. No order as to costs. K. Agnihotri Judge Th3kur