Sh. Om Prakash & Ors. v. UOI & Ors.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the interested persons (I.Ps) in the proceedings which are pending before the Land Acquisition Court under Sections 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ‘the Act’), impugning the order of the LAC court dated 16.2.2008 by which the LAC court has allowed two applications under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed 2014:DHC:7210 by respondents no.3 and 4 herein namely M/s Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Man Sarovar Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. for them to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings.

2. The case of the respondent nos. 3 and 4/applicants under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC was that the I.Ps in the proceedings by means of registered sale deeds dated 2.5.1989, and the sale deeds/assignments deeds dated 22.6.1989, had transferred their rights in the suit lands in favour of the applicants and therefore these applicants were to be impleaded under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC. It is not disputed that the sale deeds/assignments deeds executed are during the pendency of the proceedings under Sections 30-31 of the Act i.e transfer is stated to have taken place pendente lite. The petitioners however dispute the transfer to the applicants/respondent nos. 3 and 4.

3. The LAC court has allowed the applications holding that the applicants have to be given an opportunity to prove their right, title and interest in the land in question in view of the sale deeds/assignment deeds relied upon by them.

4. I may also state that whether or not the sale deeds and assignments deeds have or have not been executed, inasmuch as petitioners/I.Ps dispute the execution of the sale deeds/assignment deeds, this will be a disputed question of fact requiring trial in the LAC proceedings and disputed questions of fact with respect to transfer of title of the land surely cannot be decided without trial/leading evidence.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/I.Ps contended that the Land Acquisition Act provides a complete code and that the transferees pendente lite cannot be said to be interested persons in view of Section 3(b) of the Act and hence it is argued that they cannot be added as parties to the proceedings. Reliance in support of this argument is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shyamali Das Vs. Illa Chowdhry & Ors. 2006 IX AD (S.C.) 572.

6. I am unable to agree with the arguments urged on behalf of the petitioners/I.Ps that the applicants should not be added as parties to the LAC proceedings inasmuch as Order XXII Rule 10 CPC clearly provides that where rights in the subject matter of the legal proceedings are transferred, the transferee can surely apply for being impleaded under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC. In fact, unlike the provisions of Order XXII Rules 3 and 4 CPC for which limitation is provided, no limitation period is provided for moving an application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC. In fact, application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC is required in order to prevent fraud upon the transferees of the suit lands, because in their absence, rights in the suit land (if are transferred to the applicants and proved by them in accordance with law in the LAC proceedings), will be illegally and unfairly claimed by the I.Ps though they are not entitled to the same. Supreme Court in the case of Dhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs. Jai Prakash University and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 2552 has held that there is no limitation period prescribed for filing an application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC and transferees pendente lite in order to protect their interest can surely seek their impleadment under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC.

7. The judgment in the case of Shyamali Das (supra) relied upon by the petitioners/I.Ps is distinguishable on facts because in the said judgment the facts were that the applicant had moved a second application for impleadment although an earlier application was dismissed vide order dated 22.6.2004 of the LAC court and which order dated 22.6.2004 had achieved finality. The fresh application also was only for an interim order in the proceedings when the right to be impleaded was already denied by the order of the LAC court dated 22.6.04. Since the order of the LAC court dated 22.6.2004 had become final it was therefore held that the applicant cannot again seek to be impleaded under Order I Rule 10 CPC, and that too only for an interim order. Para 26 of the judgment makes the position clear that the disputant is entitled to an interim order only if she is a party to the proceedings, but since she cannot become a party to the main proceedings hence the court would have no jurisdiction to pass an interim order in favour of such a person. In fact Supreme Court in para 20 of the judgment in the case of Shyamali Das (supra) stated that in certain circumstances even if one application under Order I Rule 10 CPC is dismissed, another application under Order I Rule 10 CPC can be filed if fresh facts arise for filing of a fresh application under Order I Rule 10 CPC. In the present case, however the subject application is the first application which has been filed and thus allowed under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC by the lower court and therefore unlike the judgment in the case of Shyamali Das (supra) there is no bar in moving of the subject application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC on account of a similar application having been dismissed earlier as was the position in Shyamali Das’s case (supra). Also, it is relevant to note that in Shyamali Das’s case (supra) the applicant was guilty of malafides because the Supreme Court in fact observed in para 25 of the judgment that the applicant really did not prima facie have any right, title and interest in the property to which claim was laid by means of the second application under Order I Rule 10 CPC. Also, it is relevant to note that the judgment in the case of Shyamali Das (supra) does not deal with the issue of transferee pendente lie, and which aspect is the subject matter of Order XXII Rule 10 CPC and Shyamali Das’s case (supra) proceeds only with respect to proceedings under Order I Rule 10 CPC.

8. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

DECEMBER 18, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib