DILIP RAOSAHEB DESHMUKHversusPUNIT AVINASH SONAWANE AND ORS

                                                     901-wp-2536-2019 (c).doc




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 2536 OF 2019

Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh                                      ...Petitioner
       VERSUS
Punit Avinash Sonawane And Ors.                              ...Respondents

                                 …..
Adv. Dilip Bodake a/w Adv. Viraj P. Dhumal, Amar P. Dhumal and Adv.
Sujata B. Lohar, for Petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay D. Rayrikar, learned AGP for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4-
State.
Adv. Pradeep Salgar a/w Adv. Vaishnavi Shelar, Advocate for
Respondent No.1.
                                 …..


                                     CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

                                     DATE     : 22nd JUNE, 2026.

P.C. :

           Heard both sides.

2.         This petition is directed against the order dated 04.02.2017

passed below Exhibit-21, rejecting the application of the petitioner

seeking impleadment in RCS No.798 of 2016.

3.         The respondent No.1 is the original plaintiff, who has preferred

RCS No.798 of 2016 for injunction simpliciter. The cause of action

stated to be the notice dated 24.08.2016 issued by respondent No.4-

Deputy Collector in respect of the resumption of the land. The suit land,



     ZIP                                                               1 of 5
                                                      901-wp-2536-2019 (c).doc


which is part and parcel of Gut No.392, originally belonged to the

present petitioner/third party. It was acquired by the competent

authority. It was allotted to respondent Nos.5 and 6 on 06.11.2006 on

certain conditions. Thereafter, it was sold by them to the respondent

No.1/plaintiff on 20.01.2014.

4.         The petitioner submitted the application Exhibit-21 on the

premise that respondent Nos.5 and 6 fraudulently received the land of

the petitioner though they were given alternate land. The fraud was

disclosed in enquiry conducted by the competent authority. A letter

dated 06.06.2018 issued by the Additional Collector would indicate the

mischief. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 were not seriously contesting the

suit.

5.         The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is necessary and a proper party. The fraud played by the

respondent Nos.5 and 6 needs to be disclosed to the Court. The

respondent Nos.2 to 4 are not seriously contesting the matter and they

were proceeded ex parte. An order of status quo was also passed by the

Trial Court. It is submitted that being original owner, the petitioner is

entitled to get back the land acquired by the authority. In the

alternative, it is also tried to be submitted that the petitioner is

appropriate party whose presence is required for the objective scrutiny

of the matter.




     ZIP                                                                2 of 5
                                                      901-wp-2536-2019 (c).doc


6.         Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent

No.1 submits that the petitioner was paid compensation when his land

was acquired and possession receipt was also executed. His earlier suit

was dismissed. He has no interest in the suit land. No relief is claimed

against him. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 are contesting the suit for filing

written statement. Respondent No.1 purchased the suit land after

following the due procedure of law.

7.         The learned AGP supports the impugned order. It is submitted

that the State authorities are contesting the suit and they have preferred

written statement also.

8.         Impugned order shows that the RCS No.590 of 2007 preferred by

the petitioner was dismissed, which would indicate that he is not in

possession of the suit land. It was acquired by due procedure of law and

he was paid compensation. Thereafter, it was allotted to respondent

Nos.5 and 6. There are pleadings on record to show that after relaxing

the condition and extending the permission, it was sold by respondent

Nos.5 to 6 to the respondent No.1 on 20.01.2014. The petitioner can

have no vested interest in the suit land after its acquisition and payment

of compensation to him.

9.         The relief sought is an injunction simpliciter in the wake of the

action being taken by the respondent authorities for resumption of the

land. Trial Court is justified in holding that the petitioner is not a




     ZIP                                                                3 of 5
                                                       901-wp-2536-2019 (c).doc


necessary party. It is disclosed that initially the suit was to proceed ex

parte against Respondent Nos.2 to 4, but appropriate steps were taken

by them. They have also filed a written statement contesting the suit.

There is no reason to apprehend that the suit would go uncontested or

would proceed in collusion with the authorities.

10.         The learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that, at least,

the petitioner can be said to be a proper party. He has relied upon the

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw &

Anr. Versus Farida Khatoon & Another1. The facts of the judgment are

distinguishable. Those would not enure to his benefit. It is clearly

observed by Apex Court in paragraph No.10 that the impleadment of a

party depends on its interest in the suit property. There has to be an

enforceable legal right for the persons seeking impleadment. Both

things are absent in the present case.

11.         The order of the Division Bench in the case of Shivpratap

Krishnarao Patankar Versus Yogesh Mhase & Ors. is not in respect of

order I Rule 10 of CPC. It is an interlocutory order and would not enure

the to the benefit of the petitioner.

12.         Merely because some inquiries were initiated at the instance of

the petitioner and a report was prepared would not confer any right to

the petitioner to claim impleadment in the suit. The letter dated

06.06.2018 issued by the Additional Collector would not culminate the

1   (2005) 11 SCC 403.



      ZIP                                                                4 of 5
                                                      901-wp-2536-2019 (c).doc


petitioner into necessary or a proper party. The petitioner has an

independent remedy against the authorities and the same cannot be

ventilated in the present suit. The State authorities are contesting the

suit. Hence, the apprehension of the petitioner is baseless.

13.         I find no illegality in the impugned order. The writ petition is

dismissed. The Trial Court shall expeditiously conclude the proceedings.

14.         Needless to state that observations recorded in this order are

prima facie in nature.

                                                  [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME]




      ZIP                                                               5 of 5