High CourtsDivision Bench(2005) 02 MAD CK 0017

National Ex-servicemen Coordination Committee vs S.P. Nagarajan and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 25 February 2005 · Citation: (2005) 1 LW 811

HON’BLE JUDGES
Markandey Katju, C.J · D. Murugesan, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
W.A. No. 2685 of 2004

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 347 words

D. Murugesan, J.—This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 15-4-2004 in W.P.M.P. No. 8005 of 2004 in W.P. No. 34058 of

2003, by which order, the request of the appellant to implead itself as a party-respondent in the writ petition was rejected on the ground that the

appellant is neither a necessary nor proper party to the writ petition.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The respondents 1 to 7 herein had approached this Court for a Writ of Mandamus, restraining the

respondents 1 to 26 in the writ petition from interfering with their possession in respect of the land in S. No. 192/2 in Puduchampalli,

Veerkkalputhur village, Metturdam Taluk, Salem District, which is classified as natham-promboke. Appellant has filed an application in the said

writ petition for impleading itself as party-respondent to the writ petition on the ground that the appellant''s members had approached the District

Collector by making necessary applications for allotment of the land in question and, on a report called for, the Tahsildar has also made a

recommendation. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appellant is a necessary and proper party. We find every merit in the

grievance of the appellant inasmuch as there is a claim for allotment of the land which is classified as natham-promboke. We are also of the view

that in the own interest of the writ-petitioners, they should get the adjudication of the writ petition after hearing the appellant herein in order to avoid

multiplicity of proceedings. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. The appellant is directed to be

impleaded as fourth respondent in the writ petition. We, however, make it clear that by mere ordering impleadment of the appellant as fourth

respondent to the writ petition, we have not decided the rival claims on merits and that will be decided by the learned single Judge in the writ

petition after hearing the appellant also.

3.

The writ appeal is allowed. Connected WAMP No. 4966 of 2004 is closed.