RAJA MOHAMMAD AMIR MOHAMMAD KHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
RAJA MOHAMMAD AMIR MOHAMMAD KHAN
UNION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) ON 12th of April, 2012, the Court had allowed the impleadment application no.3192 of 2012, filed by the Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., as a proper party in the interest of justice. The Court also directed the matter to be listed for hearing on 23rd April, 2012, since there was a request from the Supreme Court of India to decide the matter. Since the pleadings were incomplete, the matter could not be decided on the last date, and consequently, today was fixed for hearing. Unfortunately, a private party, namely, M/s Kohli Brothers, sitting on the fence and watching the proceedings, in order to scuttle the hearing, for reasons best known to them, has filed the present impleadment application praying that pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court dated 10th April, 2012, they should be impleaded as a necessary party.
(2.) IT transpires that the bone of contention before the Supreme Court in interim relief application no.49 of 2010, filed in Contempt Petition No.87 of 2006 in Civil Appeal No.2501 of 2002 is that the petitioner has sought a relief that M/s Kohli Brothers, one of the occupants in Lawrie Building Lucknow, is not an authorised or a legal occupant prior to 1965, and consequently, the said occupant is liable to be evicted pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 21st October, 2005. M/s Kohli Brothers denies this fact and are contesting the matter before the Supreme Court.
On 10th April, 2012, the Supreme Court, while hearing the aforesaid interim relief application, found that the issues involved in the interim application before the Supreme Court and the issues involved before the High Court, to some extent overlap and held that any decision that may be rendered by the High Court, would have an impact in the proceedings before the Supreme Court. Armed with this observation, M/s Kohli Brothers have filed the present impleadment application.
The issue involved in the present writ petition is with regard to the validity of the Ordinance of 2010. A specific prayer has been made that the properties taken by the Custodian, pursuant to the Ordinance of 2010, should be returned in the same condition as they were at the time of taking over by the Custodian and their agents. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the Custodian had only given juridical or notional possession of five buildings and one such building was Lawrie building in which M/s Kohli Brothers were the occupants of a part of the building and pursuant to the Ordinance, the juridical/notional possession was taken over by the Custodian. Consequently if the writ petition is allowed the same juridical possession will again have to be handed over to the petitioner by the Custodian. It was contended that M/s Kohli Brothers are not involved in the present writ petition nor any relief is being claimed against them and consequently they are neither proper parties nor necessary parties. The learned senior counsel submitted that they can be heard at best.
(3.) IN the light of the aforesaid and considering the observations made by the Supreme Court, the Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, M/s Kohli Brothers should be impleaded as a proper party. Consequently, the impleadment application is allowed. M/s Kohli Brothers is impleaded as respondent no.5 to the writ petition. Necessary correction shall be made in the memo of parties during the course of the day by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The hearing will continue after lunch. It is open to the M/s Kohli Brothers to file a counter affidavit, if so desire, during the course of the hearing of the petitioner.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.