Sh. Mohinder Singh and Others vs NCT of Delhi and Others

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.—The appellants filed a suit on the Original Side of this Court seeking a declaration that they were the bhoomidars in possession of plot No. 415 situated within the Lal Dora of Village Bijwasan, New Delhi. The appellants claimed that in view of the declaration given by the Revenue Assistant in terms of Order dated 26.02.1979, the appellants have become the bhoomidars of the land in question in view of the provisions of Section 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (''the DLR Act'' for short) as they had the cultivatory possession of the land in question and the owner Mr. Mir Singh s/o Mr. Ram Nath had taken no steps u/s 84 of the DLR Act to remove them. The appellants have also sought cancellation of an order dated 19.01.2006 passed by the Financial Commissioner in respect of the land in question.

It may be noticed at the inception itself that the order dated 19.01.2006 of the Financial Commissioner became subject matter of challenge in WP(C) No. 1678-84/2006 which has been dismissed vide order dated 08.02.2006. An appeal was preferred against that order by the appellants herein which has been dismissed, being LPA Nos. 443-449/2006, by a separate order passed by us today. In the said order, it has been held that the claim of the appellants to plot No. 415 which was predicated on an application having been made by Mr. Mir Singh s/o Mr. Ram Nath for allotment of land in phirni whereby plot No. 415 was allotted, was not sustainable as no such application was made by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants i.e. Mr. Mir Singh s/o of Mr. Ram Nath nor by the appellants.

The present appeal has arisen on an application filed by the applicants in the suit seeking impleadment as a party which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 28.01.2009.

The case of the appellants in those proceedings for recording of their claim in the revenue record is pending in respect of the land in question. Mr. Mir Singh s/o Mr. Ram Nath is stated to have sold 122 bighas and 7 biswas of land on 31.10.1973 to Mr. Mohinder Singh and other plaintiffs which in turn was sold to various purchasers. The applicants claim that during consolidation proceedings neither Mr. Mir Singh s/o Mr. Ram Nath nor any of the transferees made any demand for allotment of a plot. The plot of land measuring 6 bighas and 6 biswas which was subject matter in the suit vested in the GaonSabha and out of that land allotment had been made in favour of the applicants. The request of the applicants to be impleaded as a party in WP(C) No. 15070/2006 filed by the appellants seeking directions for entering their names in the revenue records was allowed on 09.07.2008. The applicants sought impleadment as a necessary party. This application was opposed by the appellants claiming that the applicants were not parties to proceedings before the Revenue Assistant. It was pleaded that the principle of res judicata would apply in view of the dismissal of an earlier application in WP(C) No. 2742/1984.

The learned Single Judge considered the submissions and noted the fact that the LPA was pending which LPA has been dismissed by us vide a separate order passed today. The learned Single Judge noted that in WP(C) No. 15070/2006 the application for impleadment had been allowed.

We find no infirmity with the impugned order. The subject matter of the dispute is the land in question in respect of which the Financial Commissioner has passed an Order, which Order has been upheld by the learned Single Judge and thereafter by us today. The learned Single Judge had permitted impleadment of the persons who were the applicants in the suit filed by the appellants in writ proceedings filed by the appellants seeking entry of their name in the revenue records. The dispute may have been with the Gaon Sabha, but the Gaon Sabha in turn had allotted the land to the applicants. In such a situation, it could not be inferred that the applicants had no interest in the suit property. It is no doubt true that the plaintiff is normally the dominus litis, but where a party has a direct interest in the subject matter of litigation, the said party is liable to be added in the array of parties.

The claim of the applicants was in respect of the same land for which the applicants have sought declaration.

We, thus, agree with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the non impleadment of the applicants would cause multiplicity of proceedings and may lead to conflicting orders.

The appeal and the applications, being without any merit, are dismissed.