Civil Writ Petition No. 4795 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 4795 of 2008 Date of Order: 07.07.2010 Sanat Realtors Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus The Joint Development Commissioner and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S.Brar, DAG, Punja for respondent no.1 Mr.Dhirinder Chopra, Advocate for respondent no.2, Advocate for respondents No. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 01.02.2008, passed by the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) (exercising the powers of Commissioner), rejecting the petitioner's prayer for being impleaded as a party to proceedings pending under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') Respondents no.3 to 25 filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act, claiming title in land measuring 233 Bighas and 8 Biswas situated in village Nagla, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali. Vide order dated 09.01.2007, the Collector, Patiala, allowed the petition Civil Writ Petition No. 4795 of 2008 -2- and held that as respondents no.3 to 25 are proprietors, the land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Thereafter respondents no.3 to 25 sold the land to the petitioner, vide registered sale deeds dated 19.03.2007, 30.03.2007 and 24.05.2007 and mutation numbers 572, 573, 574 and 581 came to be recorded in favour of the petitioner. The Gram Panchayat filed an appeal against the order dated 09.01.2007. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application for being impleaded as a party, on the basis of sale deeds and the mutations. Vide order dated 01.02.2008, the Commissioner dismissed the application by holding that the petitioner is not a necessary party to the pending lis. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has admittedly purchased the land in dispute from respondents no.3 to 25, after the Collector declared them to be owners. The petitioner is a necessary party as any right, title or interest that respondents no.3 to 25 had in the land in dispute, has been transferred to the petitioner. It is further submitted that if the appeal is accepted, the petitioner would necessarily be divested of his title and the sale deeds executed in his favour would be declared to be null and void. The petitioner, therefore, has a right to protect his right in the land in dispute. Counsel for the Gram Panchayat submits that the petitioner is a vendee pendente lite. As the land belongs to the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party. It is further argued that as the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner are not subject matter of the appeal, the petitioner's application for being impleaded as a party was rightly rejected. Civil Writ Petition No. 4795 of 2008 -3- I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The dispute pending adjudication before the appellate authority relates to the ownership of land, admittedly purchased by the petitioner after the Collector declared respondents no.3 to 25 as owners of the land. The petitioner has, therefore, stepped into the shoes of respondents no. 3 to 25 and is validly entitled to defend the appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat. If the order passed by the Collector is set aside and the Gram Panchayat is held to be the owner, the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner would necessarily be null and void, thereby adversly effecting the rights of the petitioner. If the petitioner is not allowed to participate in the appeal, it may lead to multiplicity of proceedings and the possibility of conflicting orders being passed. As a consequence, the writ petition is allowed, the order dated 01.02.2008 is set aside and the petitioner is impleaded as a party to the pending appeal. The petitioner shall not be entitled to plead any equities in his favour on the basis of the sale deeds.. Parties are directed to appear before the Collector on 01.09.2010, for further proceedings. July 07,2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE