C.R. No. 273 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 273 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: January 19, 2009 M/s Arihant Spinning Mills .. Petitioner v. Mohd. Halim and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. O. P. Goyal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Priya Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading as one of the defendant in the suit was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that one Mohd. Halim filed a suit against Mohd. Shakeel, his brother, for specific performance, inter alia, praying for getting the sale deed dated 14.8.2002 registered for the land measuring 14 biswas, as 28/556 share of land measuring 13 bighas, 18 biswas bearing khewat khatauni No. 169/343, khasra Nos. 118/1-0, 661/117/1/1-18, 664/119/3-6 and 120/17-14, situated at Village Ratolan, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur. The claim was made on the basis of an oral commitment dated 18.2.2002. It is in this suit that the petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as defendant with the contentions that in fact, on 29.8.1981, big chunk of land was acquired for use by the petitioner. Out of a big plot, 1 bigha and 18 biswas of land was acquired, which was part of the total acquisition, out of which Mohd. Shakeel owned only 4 biswas. As per the award, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 33,000/- way back on 13.7.1983. Even the sale deed of the entire land including the portion of which vide alleged oral agreement to sell a sale deed is sought to be executed, has already been executed by the State in favour of the petitioner after acquisition. Considering the aforesaid fact and finding that the petitioner is not proper or necessary party in the lis C.R. No. 273 of 2009 [2] between the respondents, the application for being impleaded as defendant was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the suit property has already been transferred in the name of the petitioner after acquisition by the State, in case any decree is passed in the suit, the same will materially affect the rights of the petitioner as the decree holder will seek possession from the petitioner. However, I do not find any merit in the argument raised. It is a case where after acquisition, the land has been transferred by the State in favour of the petitioner on payment of the compensation. After the acquisition of land and enhancement of the award, the land vests in the State free from all encumberances. Whosoever has any right, title or interest in the land can move the Collector for payment or apportionment of compensation. The petitioner, for whose benefit the land was acquired, part of which is subject-matter of the suit, has already been transferred the ownership thereof after execution of the sale deed by the State on payment of the compensation. Considering these facts, I do not find that the rights of the petitioner are adversely affected in any manner whatsoever in the suit filed by respondent No. 1 against respondent No. 2. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 19.1.2009 mk