TMI Blog1985 (9) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e class people it required further area. It submitted its representation to the State Government and the State Government, by its Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, acquired the lands bearing Survey Nos. 384, 385 and 386 situated at the outskirt of Vadhva. Thus, the lands were acquired by the State Government, who is the 1st defendant in the suit, for achieving the objects and activity of the petitioner herein. While so, the 1st respondent herein, who is the plaintiff, and his relatives and other interested persons, originally filed suits in which the petitioner was also a party-defendant. Having failed in those proceedings, the plaintiff, who is the 1st respondent herein, has come forward with the present suit without making the petitioner as the party-defendant. It is the case of the petitioner herein in the application filed by him that he is a necessary and proper party, that if the suit is proceeded without the petitioner being a party, irreparable loss and hardship would be caused to him and that the petitioner being the acquiring body of the disputed lands, he should be joined as a party third defendant to the suit. With the above said prayer the petitioner herein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. Thus, R. 10(2) (of O.1), C.P.C. provides for addition, (1) of necessary parties, and (2) of proper parties. The necessary party is that party, without whom no decree at all can be passed. In order that a party may be considered a necessary party, there must be a right to some relief against him in respect of the matter involved in the suit and that his presence should be necessary in order to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. This implication is derived from the words ought to have been joined occurring in O.1, R. 10(2), C.P.C. In the very same rule the sentence whose presence before the Court may be necessary by implication refers to proper parties. A person may be added as a defendant to a suit though no relief may be claimed against him provided his presence is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecific Relief Act, is not exactly a rule of rest judicator. It is narrower in one sense and wider in another. The above-said guidelines clearly establish that the adding of' parties under O. 1, R. 10 is generally not one of initial jurisdiction of the Court, but of a judicial discretion which-has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case. A reading of O. 1, R. 10(2) clearly establishes that the Court' can either upon the application or sue Mote join the party in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. 7. In the light of the above-said decision, we have to now consider whether the petitioner is a necessary or a proper party for being added as party-defendant to the suit. 8. As far as the present, case I concerned, it is clear from the facts of the case that the petitioner herein is the acquiring body and for whose benefits the lands are acquired. Whether such an acquiring body is a necessary party or a proper party is subject matter of various decisions of the High Courts in India including that of the Supreme Court, it is unnecessary to deal wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aded, observed that the allotted is not at all necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions regarding the legality of the declaration made by the Government. In Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Chandulal Shamaldas Patel (1971) 1 SCC 821, a Division Bench of tile Supreme Court consisting of two learned judges had occasion to consider as to whether the Municipal Corporation for whose. Benefit the lands were acquired by the State Government was a party interested in the proceedings. That is a case in which the aggrieved party whose lands were acquired by the State Government filed a writ petition to quash the notification issued by the Government. In that the aggrieved party has added the Municipal Corporation as the 4th defendant. The High Court quashed the Notification. As against that the Municipal Corporation preferred appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, holding that the Municipal Corporation cannot have any interest in such acquisition proceedings, dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. Thus reading the above-said decision cited, it is clear that the acquiring body such as the petitioner herein cannot be termed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quiring body to appear and adduce evidence, if any. From this it is clear that the acquiring body is termed as an interested person in such acquisition proceedings. Thus, it is clear from a combined reading of all these provisions that the words. person interested given in S. 18 is an inclusive definition and must be liberally construed so as to embrace all persons who may be directly or indirectly interested either in the title to the land or in the quantum of compensation. In Himalaya Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. v. Francis Victor Coutinho AIR 1980 SC 1118. Supreme Court had occasion to consider as to whether the body for whose benefit the land is acquired is a party interested in the proceedings challenging such acquisition. The Government in that case acquired the land for the benefit of a private party. This was questioned by the owner of the land on the ground that the Company of which the land is acquired is a private company, that such acquisition cannot be considered for public purpose under S. 4.of the Act and that such acquisition has to be quashed. This plea taken by the plaintiff from a combined reading of all these provisions in the suit found favor with a single jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally observed : 13. Thus, the preponderance of judicial opinion, seems to favour the view that the definition of 'person interested' must be liberally construed so as to include a body, local authority, or a company for whose benefit the land is acquired and who, is bound under an agreement to pay, the compensation. In our opinion, this view accords with the principles of equity, justice and good conscience. How can it be said that a person for whose benefit the land is acquired and who is to pay the compensation is not a person interested even though its stake may be, extremely vital? For instance, the land acquisition proceedings may be held to be invalid and thus a person concerned is completely deprived of the benefit, which is proposed to be given to him. Similarly, if such a person is not heard by the Collector or a Court, he may have to pay a very heavy compensation which, in case he is allowed to appear before a court, he could have satisfied it that the compensation was far too heavy having regard to the nature and extent of the land. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view taken by the Orissa High Court or even by the Calcutta High Court that a compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atching authority then their weight inevitably must be considered by, the rationale and the logic thereof and not by t1he mere fortuitous circumstances of the time and date on which they were rendered. It is manifest that when two directly conflicting judgments of the superior Court and of equal authority are extant then both of them cannot be binding on the courts below. Inevitably a choice, though a difficult one, has to be made in such a situation. On principle it appears to me that the High Court must follow the judgment, which appears to it to lay down the law more elaborately and accurately. The mere incidence of time whether the judgments of co-equal Benches of the superior Court are earlier or later is a consideration which appears to, me as hardly relevant. In contradistinction to the above-said decision, we have catena of decisions, which say that in respect of the decision of the Superior Court of co-equal Benches, the later one prevails over the former. In Vasant Tatoba Hargude v. Dikkaya Muttaya Pujari, AIR 1980 Bom 341 a Bench of the Bombay High Court has held that in case of conflict between earlier and later decisions of Supreme Court where each Bench consists o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and full decision on the question involved in the proceeding. Continuing the Supreme Court held (12) To summaries in a writ of certiorari not only the tribunal or authority whose order is sought to be quashed but also parties in whose favor the said order is issued are necessary parties. But it is in the discretion of the court to add or implead proper parties for completely settling all the questions that may be involved in the controversy either summon or on the application of a party to the writ or an application filed at the instance of such proper party. The above-said observation made by the Supreme Court completely answers the contention put forth by Mr. Trivedi, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent to the effect that if the relief can be fully granted even in the absence of the Housing Board, then the Board is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to be added., As correctly observed by the learned referring Judge of our High Court in the present case the impugned land acquisition is for the public purpose of the Gujarat Housing Board and is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
