^c^' ^ ^l%li.. "- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR > N0^^ WRIT PETITION (227) N0. /2010 PETITIONERS [proposed defendants] 4^ ^•' ^'^iy'... .\^^ ^>'' ^ ^y '^^•'- ^" RESPONDENT [Plaintiff[ RESPONDENT [Defendant ] 1) ^ Anwarul Huq S/o Haji Abdul, aged about 35 years, Occupation- Advocate, 2) "" Jagdev Vishwakarma, S/o Shri Jainath, aged about 50 years, Occupation- Agriculturist; 3) ^ Shiv Prasad Rajwade, S/o Tewka Ram, aged about 40 years; Occupation- Agriculturist; 4) Mohd. Imtiaz, S/o Shri Gulam Rasool, aged about 38 years; Occupation- Mechanic; All R/o village- Panchayat Nawagarh, Ambikapur, P.S. & Tehsil- Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS 1) Smt. Keshkunwar, D/o late Sampuran Panika, W/o Premsai, aged about 65 years; R/o village- Kanthi, P.S. 85 Tehsil- Ambikapur, Distnct- Sarguja (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Sarguja (C.G.) Ambikapur. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE-227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kmnar Mishra Writ Petition r227> No. 7489/^)10 PETmONERS RESPONDENTS Anwand Huq and ofliers Versus Smt. Keshfcunwar and aiwther Aooearance: Shri A.N. Pandey, counsel for the petitioners. Shri V.V.S. Moordiy, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent No.2. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OP THE CONSTmJTION OF INDIA ORALORDER (16.12.2010) In a suit filed by responctoit No.l/plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction in relation to Kotwari land/Govemment land/ tfae petitioners/villagers have moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 ofCPC for their impleadment as defendants. It is this prayer ofthe petitioners which has been rejected by the trial court. (2) The trial court has observed that in tihe suit filed by the plaintiff against tiie State Govemment the petitioners have no say. (3) In the opinion of this court the reasoning assigned by the trial court to refuse the prayer for impleadment does not suffer from any error ofjurisdiction. (4) Admittedly, the suit land is Kotwari land, however in the absence of a regular Kotwar in office, the land is lying vacant. / According to the petitioners they are taking care ofthe land so that it •%.'^ may not be wasted. In the facts of Ae case, it is to be seen that Ifae State Government has already been airayed as a party/defendant in the suit and it shall take care of the interest. No third party is ordinarily permitted to intervene in the suit unless tfie said party is either necessary or proper party for adjudication ofthe suit. Nothing of this nature has been placed on record to demonstrate that Ihe suit cannot be decided in the absence ofpetitioners. (5) There is no substance in this petition under article 227 ofltie Constitution oflndia, which fails aad is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge