Allah Bux v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Order

: 9th December 2010. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr Vijay Jain, for the petitioner. <<>> BY THE COURT: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record.

The plaintiff-respondent No.4 Gram Panchayat, Munda has filed a suit for perpetual injunction (CO No. 11/2010) in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hanumangarh against the respondents Nos. 1 to 3, the State of Rajasthan through the Collector, Hanumangarh, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Tibbi, and the Tehsildar (Revenue), Tibbi. The plaintiff-respondent No. 4 has alleged in the plaint that there being no place reserved in the panchayat area for dumping of dead animals, the Panchayat received with the help of the villagers a part of land donated by one Virendra Pal Singh son of Prem Pratap out of his khatedari land at Chak 2 MD; and that the said land comprised in Killa No. 23 of Stone No. 176/320 was delivered in possession of the plaintiff and mutation was also effected in the revenue record. According to the plaintiff, a request has been made for setting apart this 2 land for the purpose of dumping of dead animals but then, the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were interfering and have orally directed against such use. While stating that deprivation of such use would cause serious trouble to the plaintiff and to the villagers, a perpetual injunction has been claimed in the suit thus: “(क) कक पत(cid:6)व(cid:8)द(cid:10)गण क(cid:13) ववरद श(cid:8)श व(cid:6) व(cid:20)(cid:8)द(cid:13)श क(cid:21) ड(cid:23)क(cid:21) इस आश(cid:20) क(cid:21) ज(cid:8)र(cid:10) फरम(cid:8)ई ज(cid:8)व(cid:13) कक व(cid:8)द(cid:10) द(cid:8)र(cid:8) ह(cid:8)ड(cid:23)(cid:8) र$ड& क(cid:13) प(cid:20)$जन ह(cid:13)(cid:6)( द(cid:8)न म) प(cid:8)प (cid:6) क+ व, भ.मम चक 2 एम.(cid:23)&. (cid:6)हस&ल ट4ब6& क(cid:13) पत9र नम6र-176/320 क(cid:13) ककल(cid:8) नम6र-23 क(cid:21) .152 ह;क4(cid:13)(cid:20)र अ9(cid:8)>(cid:6) 12 ब6सव(cid:8) भ.मम म) म+(cid:6) पश(ओB क$ (cid:23)(cid:8)लन(cid:13) म) क$ई 6(cid:8)ध(cid:8) प;द(cid:8) नह(cid:10)B कर) (cid:6)9(cid:8) उक भ.मम क$ ह(cid:8)ड(cid:23)(cid:8) र$ड& क(cid:13) रप म) प(cid:20)$ग म) ल(cid:8)न(cid:13) म) क$ई हस(cid:6)क(cid:13)प नह(cid:10)B कर)।" The petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for his impleadment in the said suit with the submissions that he is a co-tenant of land in question and partition having not taken place, no part of the land could have been given in gift by Virendra Pal Singh. It was also submitted that the petitioner and other families were residing only about half a kilometre from the land in question and dumping of dead animals thereat would be causing them serious problems. The petitioner asserted that he was having 3 a direct interest in the land in question and was required to be heard in the matter; and further that no effective decree could be passed in his absence. The learned Trial Court proceeded to reject the application so moved by the petitioner by its impugned order dated 30.09.2010 (Annex. 4), inter alia, with the observations that the suit had been filed by the plaintiff Gram Panchayat seeking injunction against the defendants for not obstructing the use of the land in question for dumping of dead animals; and hence, the questions in dispute, the cause of action and the prayers relate to the State of Rajasthan and other defendants. The learned Trial Court further observed that the legality of transfer of the land was not the matter-in-issue and by impleadment of the applicant, the scope of the suit shall stand enlarged and rather the very nature of the suit shall be changed. The learned Trial Court found the applicant- petitioner neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. Seeking to challenge the order dated 30.09.2010, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the observations as made in the impugned order and findings as recorded by the learned Trial Court are contrary to the record of the case and to the law applicable; and if the petitioner is not impleaded as a party to this suit, he would suffer serious injury. It is submitted that by impleadment of the petitioner, neither the scope of the suit is enlarged nor the nature of the suit changes. 4 The submissions so made on behalf of the petitioner do not make out a case for interference in the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction in this matter. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff-Gram Panchayat only for injunction against the defendant that they should not obstruct using of the land for dumping of the dead animals. Whether such an injunction should be granted or not is essentially a matter between the plaintiff and the defendant. In this suit, the applicant-petitioner cannot be said to be a necessary or a proper party on the basis of his claim as alleged. The observations of the Trial Court are justified that if the applicant is impleaded as a party, the scope of the suit would be enlarged where even the question of the title of the petitioner would crop up for consideration. The Trial Court cannot be faulted in rejecting the application for impleadment as moved by the petitioner in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the other observations as made by the Trial Court in the order impugned regarding alleged partition and transfer of the land and submitted that such observations shall be prejudicial to the petitioner. Suffice is to observe in this regard that in the order impugned, the learned Trial Court was only considering the question as to whether the petitioner should be impleaded a party in the suit or not and whatever are the observations made by the Trial Court, they relate to this core question only, i.e., as to whether presence of the petitioner is necessary for 5 effective and complete adjudication of all the questions involved in the suit. There was no occasion for the learned Trial Court to record any other finding on the claim of the petitioner nor the impugned order could be construed as final adjudication on the claim, if any, of the petitioner. As aforesaid, so far the prayer for impleadment in the suit is concerned, the same was required to be and has rightly been declined. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. /MK/ (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.