Harijan Huts Association vs Gopal Inani and Others

P.L.N. Sarma, J.—This revision petition is filed questioning the order of the Special court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad dismissing I.A.No. 267/92 in L.G.C.No. 2/92, dated 10-6-1992, filed for impleading the petitioner-Association as party respondent in the proceedings.

It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of that application that the property in dispute belongs to the Government, the 50th respondent herein, and the same was already proposed to be allotted to the petitioners Associations as per letter No. RC.No. AA2/673/AQ 78, dated 7-5-85 issued by the District Collector (social welfare), Hyderabad District. Even earlier, another letter was issued by the District Social Welfare Officer, Hyderabad Dist. in letter No. AA2/ 573/1978, dated 4-6-82 requiring the consent of the petitioners Association for construction of three/four floor houses for its members.

Having regard to the above letters, the petitioner, claiming interest in the subject matter of the litigation, filed the application to implead the Association as respondent No. 50 in L.G.C.No. 2/1992.

The said application was opposed by the first respondent stating, in his counter-affidavit, that the matter relates to him and respondents 1 to 48, who are in occupation of his land illegally and unauthorisedly, and therefore, sought relief from the. He also stated that the contention that he obtained exemption illegally u/s of the Urban Land Ceiling Act is not correct and that the no interest whatsoever in the subject matter of the proceedings.

If the government succeeds in the proceedings, it is open to the Petitioners-Association to apply for assignment of the property to it, as per the letters referred to above. The Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that if the claim of the Government is upheld, it is enough for the present petitioner to apply for assignment and seek relief and the Government is already a party respondent and it can look after its interests. The interests of the revision petitioner comes only if the Government succeeds in the proceedings.

I cannot say that the order under revision is without jurisdiction or illegal. In the application filed before the Tribunal against respondents 1 to 49 as encroachers of the land, the Government was also added as 50th respondent, since it is also claiming the property as its own. The persons who are in possession illegally or otherwise and the persons who are claiming title to the property are all parties to the said proceedings. The revision petitioner only claims that in case the Government succeeds, its members will be entitled for assignment of the property, as per the letters referred to above, I am of the view that the petitioner is neither a proper nor a necessary party to the proceedings before the Tribunal. In case the Government succeeds in the proceedings before the Tribunal, the petitioner will be entitled to apply for assignment of the property, in view of the letters referred to above, and if the members of the Petitioners-Association apply, it is for the Government to consider it and dispose of in accordance with law.

The petitioner further relied on the allegation contained in the affidavit filed in support of the petitioner in the lower court that he was made a party in W.P.No. 1732/1991 pending on the file of this court. It seems the first respondent filed the said writ petition questioning the cancellation of the exemption granted to him earlier by the Government. The writ rules are wide enough to implead any person, who wants to be heard in the case. In fact, it is in the discretion of the court to hear any person at the time of final hearing. It does not mean that the petitioner is a proper or necessary party to this proceedings. I am not inclined to admit this revision petition.

In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. No order as to costs.