Lt. Col. Doshehe Y. Sema (Retd.) & Ors. vs M/s Lpss Infra & Ors.

Heard Mr. A. Nikato Wotsa, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Joshua Sheqi, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners impugning the order dated 13.06.2025, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Zunheboto, in I.A. No. 3/2025, registered in connection with Civil Suit No. 1/2024 whereby the Trial Court allowed the prayer for striking out the name of defendant No. 3 (present respondent No. 1) from the Civil Suit No. 1/2024.

Mr. A. Nikato Wotsa, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are the absolute owner of plots of land situated in Philimi Village, Khrimtomi Village and Atoizu Town. He submits that the land of the petitioners has been allowed to be utilized for executing the work of road construction in pursuant to the work order issued to the present respondent No. 1 bearing Work Order No. CE th (R&B)/COCO Rd-KPA/CRIP/2022-23/37/267-71 dated 18 December, 2023 without taking any consent or approval from the present petitioners who are the rightful landlord owner of the land over which the said construction work is carried out.

He submits that since the petitioners have been illegally dispossessed of their land for the purpose of the aforesaid project, that too without paying any compensation, the petitioners approached the Court of learned District Judge, Zunheboto by filing a civil suit seeking compensation for illegal acquisition of their land by the respondents. The said civil suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 1/2024.

He further submits that in the said civil suit, the petitioners have made the State Government, the concerned village council and the contractor i.e., the present respondent No. 1 as defendant. The present respondent No. 1 has been arrayed as defendant No. 3 in the said suit.

The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners also got interim relief in the form of temporary injunction under Order 39 and Rules1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908staying the execution of the work of the construction of road over the properties of the petitioners. He further submits that being aggrieved by the order of granting interim relief to the petitioners, the present respondent No. 1filed an appeal before this Court and also filed a civil revision petition, which were registered as FAO No. 1/2024 and C.REVN No. 15/2024. However, he submits that both the appeals as well as revision petition were allowed to be withdrawn by the Court by its order dated 07.07.2025 by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on assurance that endeavors shall be made to have a negotiation with the plaintiffs i.e., the present petitioners by the present respondent No. 1 in the pending Civil Suit No. 1/2024.He, however, submits that in spite of the said order of this Court, the respondent No. 1 never approached the petitioners for the purpose of getting the dispute settled amicably. Rather, he approached the Trial Court by filing an interlocutory application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking striking out of name of defendant No. 3 from the Civil Suit No. 1/2024. He further submits that said interlocutory application was registered as I.A. No. 3/2025.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that thereafter by the order which has been impugned in this revision petition, i.e., order dated 13.06.2025, passed in I.A. No. 3/2025,in connection with Civil Suit No. 1/2024, the prayer of the present respondent No. 1 was allowed and his name i.e., the name of defendant No. 3 was allowed to be strike out from the plaint of Civil Suit No. 1/2024.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the Trial Court has also erred in allowing the interlocutory application filed by the present respondent No. 1 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 without discussing anything in the impugned order regarding the question as to whether the respondent No. 1 is a necessary party to this suit or not. He submits that a bare perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the interlocutory application filed by the present respondent No. 1 was allowed by the Trial Court merely on the ground that the defendant No. 3 (present respondent No. 1) had agreed to agreement of Joint Council COCO area. He submits that in the said agreement, which is a meeting resolution adopted by Joint Council of COCO area, it was resolved that as regards the damage to the building, terrace fields, fruit farms and plantations, same shall be settled by the concerned contractor (defendant No. 3). He further submits that it was also resolved therein that apart from that, no land compensation will be paid, which the present petitioners have questioned in their civil suit.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Trial Court while passing the impugned order had erred in directing the striking out of name of the defendant No. 3 in as much as it failed to take into consideration that defendant No. 3 is one of the necessary parties in whose absence an effective decree may not be passed in the pending Civil Suit No. 1/2024. He further submits that there is no dispute to the fact that it is the present respondent No. 1 who has been awarded the contract by the Government of Nagaland, PWD (R&B) by work order dated th 18 December, 2023 to proceed with the execution of the work of improvement of road from NH-61 Doyang Bridge-COCO Road, Kheloshe Polytechnic, Atoizu via Akuhaito EAC Headquarter & Emloto“IB British Bungalow”.He, therefore, submits that the presence of the present respondent No. 1/defendant No. 3 would be necessary for adjudicating the dispute by the Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 1/2024.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even the resolution adopted by village council, for example, the resolution adopted on 28.01.2024 by the Chairman, Philimi Village Council indicate that any damage to properties/plantations shall be compensated by the contractor i.e., respondent No. 1. As such, he submits that the respondent No. 1 i.e., defendant No. 3 is a necessary party for adjudication of dispute in Civil Suit No. 1/2024. Hence, he submits that the Trial Court has committed wrong in allowing the application filed by the present respondent No. 1 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and quashed.

In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan Vs. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi (D) thr. legal heirs and Ors.” reported in “2022 LiveLaw (SC) 802”

On the other hand, Mr. Joshua Sheqi, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that the Trial Court has made no error in allowing the application filed by the present respondent No. 1 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for striking out the name of the present respondent No. 1 as defendant No. 3 from the plaint of Civil Suit No. 1/2024.

He submits that the construction of proposed road which is done by the present respondent No. 1 in pursuant to the work order dated th 18 December, 2023 is done under the provisions of Central Road and Infrastructure Fund (CRIF) Act, 2000. He submits that under the provision of the said Act, it is for the State Government concerned to make the land available for road development and no provision for grant of land compensation is there under the provisions of said Act. He submits that accordingly the concerned village councils have given non-encumbering certificate in respect of the land over which the construction of road was carried out.

He submits that the respondent No. 1 is not a necessary party as compensation, if any, payable to the petitioners, it has to be by either the State Government or the Union Government. He submits that since the proprietor of respondent No. 1 firm, is a contractor and hails from the COCO area, he offered to settle the issue regarding compensation to be paid on account of damage to the building, terrace fields, fruit farms and plantations etc. due to road construction work, however, he is under no legal obligation to do so.

The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that no decree for grant of compensation for acquisition of land will be passed against a contractor who is executing the work in pursuant to the work order issued to him by the Government of Nagaland. As such, he is not a necessary party and, therefore, he submits that the Trial Court was right in striking out the name of respondent No. 1 from the plaint of Civil Suit No. 1/2024.

He further submits that the respondent No. 1 has taken certain preliminary objections before the Trial Court in the pending civil suit and it is yet to file its written statement. However, he submits that in the event this revision petition is allowed, the respondent No. 1 may be allowed to take all the defenses regarding maintainability of the suit and non-joinder of necessary parties and other defenses in its written statement.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also considered the rulings cited by learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his respective submission.

It appears from the materials on record that the Civil Suit No. 1/2024 has been filed by the present petitioners before the Trial Court seeking compensation for unauthorized use of their land for construction of aforementioned roads. It is also not in dispute that the execution of the project for construction of road over the land including the lands of the present petitioners is being carried out by the respondent No. 1 in terms th of work order dated 18 December, 2023 issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD (R&B), Nagaland, Kohima.

It also appears that in some of the resolutions adopted by Village Council of the villages in which the lands of the petitioners are situated, it is reflected that the present respondent No. 1 would be responsible for paying compensation in respect of damages caused to the plantations and other properties over the land.

On perusal of the impugned order dated 13.06.2025, it appears that the Trial Court has allowed the prayer for striking out the name of defendant No. 3 merely for the reason that the defendant No. 3 has agreed to the agreement of Joint Council COCO area dated 03.02.2024, which provides that in the event of any landowner aggrieved regarding damage of building, terrace fields, fruit farms and plantations in respect of the land over which the road development work from COCO road to Doyang road is being executed shall be settled with the concerned contractor. No other reason has been stated in the impugned order for allowing the prayer for striking out of the names of the defendant No. 3.

The Apex Court in the case, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, namely, “MoresharYadaorao Mahajan Vs. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi (D) thr. legal heirs and Ors.” (supra) has made following observation in respect of the question as to who may be regarded as necessary party or a proper party in connection with a civil suit:-

Whether the defendant No. 3 is a necessary party in the Civil Suit No. 1/2024 is for the Trial Court to decide. However, from the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides, it can be held without any doubt that the defendant No. 3 is certainly a proper party whose presence would enable to the Civil Court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate the dispute in Civil Suit No. 1/2024, though ultimately it may be found that it may not be the entity against whom the decree is to be made.

This Court is of considered opinion that while considering the I.A. No. 3/2025 in connection with Civil Suit No. 1/2024, the Trial Court ought to have considered this aspect before reaching a decision as to whether to allow the prayer for striking out the name of defendant No. 3 from the plaint of the said suit or not. However, same was not done by the Trial Court and the said reason is sufficient to set aside the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.

In view of the discussions made and reasons cited in the following paragraphs, the impugned order is hereby set aside and this revision petition is allowed.

As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 that the respondent No. 1 as defendant No. 3 in the aforesaid suit may be allowed to file a written statement is concerned, this Court is of considered opinion that considering the fact that the defendant No. 3 is a proper and its presence would facilitate the adjudication of this suit by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 1/2024, the prayer is allowed for the ends of justice. The defendant No. 3 shall file its written statement before th the Trial Court latest by 11 of September, 2026.

With the above observation, this civil revision petition is allowed.

Let the records of the Trial Court be sent back by the Registry to the Trial Court along with a copy of this judgment.

Parties shall bear their own costs.