Court No. - 43
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3080 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sharafat Ali And 02 Others Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P And 02 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandra Prakash Misra
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Satyendra Kumar holding brief of Sri Chandra Prakash Misra, learned counsel for the respondents as well as learned Standing Counsel for State respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 claims to be bona fide purchaser but they are not entitled to be impleaded in the matter on the ground that he has purchased the property from one Khursheed Jahan who claims to be sister of the Late Iqbal. The petitioners claims to be cousin of the Late Iqbal who died issueless.
It is next submitted that unless the right of the Khursheed Jahan is determined by the competent authority, respondent No.2 has no right to be impleaded in the pending matter.
Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw Vs. Farida Khatoon (SC) 2005 4 21. The Relevent paragraph quoted hereunder:
"16. The doctrine of lis pendens applies only where the lis is pending before a Court. Further pending the suit, the transferee is not entitled as of right to be made a party to the suit, though the Court has a discretion to make him a party. But the transferee pendente lite can be added as a proper party if his interest in the subject-matter of the suit is substantial and not just peripheral. A transferee pendente lite to the extent he has acquired interest from the defendant is vitally interested in the litigation, whether the transfer is of the entire interest of the defendant, the latter having no more interest in the property may not properly defend the suit. He may collude with the plaintiff. Hence, though the plaintiff is under no obligation to make a lis pendens transferee a party; under Order XXII Rule 10 an alienee pendente lite may be joined as party. As already noticed, the Court has discretion in the matter which must be judicially exercised and an alienee would ordinarily be joined as a party to enable him to protect his interest. The Court has held that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in immovable property is a representative-in-interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest. He is entitled to be impleaded in the suit or other proceedings where the transferee pendente lite is made a party to the litigation; he is entitled to be heard in the matter on the merits of the case"
In view of the above, in my opinion the Board of Revenue has rightly remitted the matter to the Tehsildar to consider the impleadment application filed by the resopndent No.2.
I do not consider it is a fit case to entertain under Article 226 of the Constitution. The matter is still pending before Tehsildar in summery proceeding, the Board of Revenue has issued certain direction to him. Concerned Tehsildar is directed to pass the appropriate order after hearing both the parties expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that any observation made in this order shall not prejudice the cause of petitioners as this Court has not adjudicated the matter on merit.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 S. Thakur