Court No. - 42
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9807 of 2019 Petitioner :- Tajpur Joint Co Operative Society Ltd Respondent :- Special Land Acquisition And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nand Kumar Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.09.2019. From a perusal of the order dated 28.09.2019, it appears that the petitioner had filed the aforesaid injunction Suit with respect to interference the petitioner's property by the N.H.A.I. Initially the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court in which writ petition, the N.H.A.I. had specifically averred before the High Court that neither the petitioner's land had been acquired nor occupied/ possessed by the N.H.A.I. The Court therefore, observed that the petitioner may approach the civil court for injunction against N.H.A.I. Now the civil court has rejected the plaint on grounds of not having jurisdiction. Against an order passed for rejection of plaint on ground of lack of jurisdiction, the petitioner has remedy of filing an appeal. However, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, he has pointed out to this Court that he had made the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bijnor as defendant in the aforesaid Suit. The Special Land Acquisition Officer in his objections to the application for temporary injunction has stated clearly that Gata No.226 Kha was not within the proposal for land acquisition submitted by the N.H.A.I., on whose behalf land had been acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bijnor.
3. The petitioner has not impleaded the N.H.A.I. as a party, either in the regular Suit or in this petition.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the N.H.A.I. has said before this Court that it had not acquired the land in question and has not disturbed the possession of the petitioner over it. The petitioner thought it fit not to implead the N.H.A.I.
5. The petitioner is directed to implead the N.H.A.I. in the aforesaid civil Suit by moving a simultaneous application for amendment and an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the District Judge against the order of rejection of plaint.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 C. MANI